Public disclosure

Last updated

A public disclosure is any non-confidential communication which an inventor or invention owner makes to one or more members of the public, revealing the existence of the invention and enabling an appropriately experienced individual ("person having ordinary skill in the art") to reproduce the invention. A public disclosure may be any form of non-confidential communication. For example an academic poster, presentation to a symposium/conference, website article, book chapter, academic journal article, or even an unguarded conversation in a car park.

Contents

Patent law

In some countries, public disclosure may result in the immediate loss of invention patentability unless a patent application has already been filed, and disclosure may be considered to include oral as well as written communication. [1]

Australia

The Full Federal Court of Australia held in Fuchs Lubricants v Quaker Chemical that the patent claims lacked novelty due to public disclosures made by the inventor Mr Thomas before any patent applications were filed. The public disclosures arose in the following way. In about September–October 2010, Mr Thompson conceived the idea of using dyes in hydraulic fluid to enable detection of fluid injection injuries. He considered it would be necessary to conduct trials and experiments using hydraulic fluid in real operational mining equipment, so approached the engineering manager of Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd, which operated the Metropolitan mine in NSW. Mr Thompson disclosed the invention by explaining his proposed method (i.e., the invention) and discussed the possibility of running trials and experiments at the Metropolitan mine. A further disclosure occurred about a month later when, in the carpark of the Metropolitan mine, Mr Thompson demonstrated his invention to two Peabody managers. The Court found that these disclosures were not confidential and therefore constituted public disclosures that compromised the novelty of the invention. [2]

United States

In the U.S., public disclosure of an invention results in the loss of patentability of the invention after a period of one year. [3]

35 U.S.C.   § 102 establishes various statutory bars to invention patentability with regard to invention novelty; these explicit bars preclude patentability as exceptions to a general underlying entitlement. The public disclosure bar is one of the bars established in section 102 (b):

"(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States..."

"Printed publications" generally include all paper and electronic forms of publication. For example, books, scientific journals, posters, conference slide presentations, and website articles would all qualify as disclosure media. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

Prior art is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability. In most systems of patent law, prior art is generally defined as anything that is made available, or disclosed, to the public that might be relevant to a patent's claim before the effective filing date of a patent application for an invention. However, notable differences exist in how prior art is specifically defined under different national, regional, and international patent systems.

A patent examiner is an employee, usually a civil servant with a scientific or engineering background, working at a patent office. Major employers of patent examiners are the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and other patent offices around the world.

Novelty is a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public before the filing date of the patent application, or before its date of priority if the applicant claims priority of an earlier patent application. The purpose of the novelty requirement is to prevent prior art from being patented again.

Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".

In United States patent law, the on-sale bar is a limitation on patentability codified at 35 U.S.C. § 102. It provides that an invention cannot be patented if it has been for sale for over one year prior to the patent filing.

Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.

Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.

Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

Japanese patent law is based on the first-to-file principle and is mainly given force by the Patent Act of Japan. Article 2 defines an invention as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature".

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it. The Court's ruling was colored by its view that the inventor had forfeited his right to patent the invention by "sleeping on his rights" while others commercialized the technology.

Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian patent law</span>

Canadian patent law is the legal system regulating the granting of patents for inventions within Canada, and the enforcement of these rights in Canada.

Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It affirmed that public use or commercialization of an invention more than one year prior to the filing date will cost the inventor his patent rights. The inventor in this case was Allan M. Konrad, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory employee who devised and implemented a method for accessing and searching data objects stored on a remote computer. Netscape moved to invalidate Konrad's patents in U.S. district court immediately after Konrad filed a patent infringement suit against Netscape customers. The district court concluded that Konrad's patents were invalid because they did not meet the public-use and on-sale bar eligibility criteria of 35 U.S.C. § 102b. In particular, the district court found that Konrad (1) placed his invention in the public domain by demonstrating it to others without a confidentiality agreement and (2) tried to sell it to other legal entities, both more than one year before he filed for the patent. The appeals court, upon review, affirmed the district court decision for the same reasons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law</span>

For a patent to be valid in Canada, the invention claimed therein needs to be new and inventive. In patent law, these requirements are known as novelty and non-obviousness. A patent cannot in theory be granted for an invention without meeting these basic requirements or at least, if a patent which does not meet these requirements is granted, it cannot later be maintained. These requirements are borne out of a combination of statute and case law.

<i>Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 265, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the novelty and non-obviousness requirements for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturer Apotex to declare Synthelabo Canada's patent for Plavix, an anti-coagulant drug, invalid. At issue was whether selection patents are invalid in principle, and if they are not, whether the subject selection patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness or double patenting.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to patents:

Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines lays down the rules and regulations that grant, and enforce patents in the Philippines. Patents may be granted to technical solutions such as an inventions, machines, devices, processes, or an improvement of any of the foregoing. The technical solution must be novel, innovative, and industrially useful. In order for a technical solution to be granted a patent, the inventor must file an application to the Bureau of Patents, which will examine, and in some cases, grant its approval. The law is designed as to foster domestic creativity, to attract foreign investors, and to motivate inventors to release their products for public access.

References

  1. ↑ "A Guide to Patent Law - Publication and Patent Rights", Harvard University Office of Technology Development Website, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2012, archived from the original on August 14, 2012, retrieved August 30, 2012
  2. ↑ "FALL FROM GRACE: FULL FEDERAL COURT CONSIDERS REASONABLE TRIAL GRACE PERIOD AND FINDS TWO PATENTS INVALID", IPTA Website, Institute of Patent and Trade mark Attorneys of Australia, 2021, retrieved August 30, 2022
  3. 1 2 "Preserving Your Patent Rights - Protecting Your Ability to Get a Patent: What Counts as a Bar to Patenting", MIT Technology Licensing Office Website, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006, retrieved August 30, 2012
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.