IP Basics

In today's competitive and rapidly evolving world, innovation is the cornerstone of progress. Whether you're a budding entrepreneur, a seasoned inventor, or a forward-thinking corporation, protecting your intellectual property through patents is crucial. But why exactly should you get a patent? Here are eight reasons why: 1. Protection and Exclusivity A patent grants you exclusive rights to your invention, preventing others from making, using, selling, or importing it without your permission. This protection is essential for discouraging your competitors from copying your innovative and commercially valuable ideas. 2. Market Advantage Having a patent can provide a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace. It establishes your credibility as an innovator and enhances your company's reputation, potentially attracting investors, partners, and customers who value originality and quality. 3. Revenue Generation Patents can be valuable assets that generate revenue through licensing agreements, partnerships, or exclusive sales. By monetizing your intellectual property, you can create additional streams of income. 4.Legal Recourse In the event of patent infringement, having a patent provides a legal basis for taking action against infringing parties. Depending upon the circumstances, it may enable you to seek damages, injunctions, or other remedies to protect your rights and enforce exclusivity. 5. Stimulating Innovation The patent system incentivizes innovation by rewarding inventors with exclusive rights for a limited period. This encourages investment in research and development, fosters technological advancement, and contributes to economic growth and prosperity. 6. Strategic Positioning Patents can play a pivotal role in shaping your company's strategic direction and positioning within the industry. They can act as barriers to entry, deter competitors from entering your market space, and provide leverage in negotiations and partnerships. 7. Attracting Investment Patents add tangible value to your company's intangible assets, making your company attractive and valuable to investors and potential buyers. They demonstrate a commitment to innovation and can serve as a strong indicator of future growth potential. 8. Long-Term Sustainability A robust patent portfolio can enhance your company's long-term sustainability by establishing a foundation for continued innovation and growth. It provides a roadmap for future product development and secures your position as a market leader in your chosen field. In conclusion, getting a patent offers a multitude of benefits that extend far beyond mere legal protection. From safeguarding your inventions to driving revenue and fostering innovation, patents play a pivotal role in shaping the success and longevity of your business. Understanding the importance of patents and leveraging them strategically, can help you secure the competitive edge. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

I am sometimes asked whether a working prototype must be built before a patent application is filed. The answer to the question is “no,” with an extremely limited exception. When the US patent system was first created, every application was required to be accompanied by a working model. Over time, The US Patent Office acquired an exceptionally large collection of models, and even operated a museum to showcase them. In 1836 and 1877, major fires occurred at the Patent Office and many of the models went up in smoke. In 1880, the Patent Office terminated the model requirement. Fast forward to today, and many patents are what we call “paper patents.” This term denotes inventions that exist solely on paper, without a physical embodiment. Nonetheless, such patents hold value as potential sources of licensing revenue or as barriers to entry in specific markets. Despite this, there remains one scenario in which models or working prototypes are still demanded. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) retains the authority to request a working model if an examiner deems it necessary. However, such requests are exceedingly rare and are typically made in cases where an invention seemingly contradicts the laws of physics. A classic example of this is when an applicant attempts to patent a perpetual motion machine. Otherwise, the submission of working models is not a standard requirement in the patent application process. Therefore, for the overwhelming majority of inventions, a detailed description of the invention suffices for the patent application process, and a working model is not required. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney with specific issues or concerns.

For those unaccustomed to the intricacies of patent documents, deciphering a U.S. patent can seem like a formidable task. Loaded with technical jargon and unusual terminology, these documents often present a steep learning curve for the inexperienced reader. Moreover, the patent claims, which delineate the legal parameters of the invention, are articulated in a concise yet highly specialized form of English, typically reserved for patent attorneys. Despite the apparent complexity, there are distinct reasons for the intricate language that appears in patents. 1. Technical Complexity: Patents inherently revolve around technical innovations, and the details may require an advanced understanding of the subject matter. From intricate algorithms to sophisticated engineering designs, drafting patent applications demands expertise in specialized subjects. 2. Precision in Patent Claims: Central to patents are patent claims, which serve as the legal definition of the scope of protection. Crafting these claims requires precise language to delineate the invention’s boundaries. Even slight deviations in wording can have significant legal ramifications, making the drafting process meticulous and the resulting text dense and technical. 3. Navigating Prior Art: To be granted, patents must protect inventions that are new (i.e. that have not already been invented by someone else). This entails distinguishing between the proposed invention and all prior technology (referred to in patent parlance as “the prior art”). Identifying the subtle nuances that render an innovation patentable is a complicated process. 4. Comprehensive Descriptions: Patents are not merely legal documents, but also guides for enabling the invention to be reproduced (referred to in patent parlance as “reducing the invention to practice”). Therefore, a patent must provide a thorough and detailed description of the invention, enabling its reproduction by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. Crafting a patent application to meet this requirement can require a description with significant technical intricacy. 5. Litigation Defense: Patents are at the center of legal disputes, and often face aggressive challenges in litigation. Consequently, patent documents must be meticulously crafted to withstand scrutiny in court. Drafting a patent to withstand an attack in court requires the inclusion of extensive language and nuanced clauses, further contributing to the complexity of patent texts. The complexity of patents is not arbitrary but rather a reflection of the multifaceted purposes they serve. From safeguarding intellectual property to facilitating innovation and commercialization, patents must navigate a myriad of legal, technical, and economic considerations. While their intricacy may seem daunting, their complexity is often crucial for ensuring that innovative ideas receive the protection and recognition they deserve. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

Your first experience filing a patent application can be daunting. Crafting a robust patent application necessitates clear communication and collaboration with your attorney. Here's how to ensure a productive partnership: 1. Identifying the Invention: Before drafting the patent application, it is essential for me to accurately pinpoint "the invention." This involves correctly defining the invention within the patent application's claims – concise sentences that delineate the patent's boundaries of protection. Drafting precise claims lays the groundwork for a robust patent. Once initial claims are drafted, it is crucial that clients carefully review them and provide feedback, allowing me to further refine the claims until consensus is reached. 2. Enablement: U.S. patent applications must meet the “enablement” requirement, meaning there must be sufficient details for others skilled in the relevant technology to replicate the invention. When I draft a patent application, I need the client to carefully read my draft and confirm there is enough information for the invention to be correctly implemented. 3. Awareness of Competitors: Telling me about your competitors is critical. When drafting a patent application, I need to know how competitors address the problem that your invention solves. This insight helps me draft better claims. 4. Prior Art Awareness: If you're aware of existing publications that describe inventions similar to yours, it's vital to inform me. These publications could potentially be considered as prior art against your patent application. Also, there may be a duty to disclose these publications to the Patent Office, to satisfy the U.S. legal requirement of Duty of Candor. By sharing existing publications (related to similar technologies) with me, your patent claims can be drafted to mitigate potential rejections. Furthermore, I can ensure that the Duty of Candor is addressed. 5. Public Disclosures: Publicly disclosing or using your invention can jeopardize patent eligibility in certain circumstances. If you've made such disclosures and seek patent protection, prompt consultation with me is imperative. 6. Inventor Identification: Accurately identifying all inventors involved is essential for patent application filing. Clear communication with your me regarding contributors ensures correct inventorship attribution. These are just a few critical considerations that must be addressed to prepare a successful patent application. Failing to navigate these issues effectively may render the patent invalid or unenforceable. Effective communication between us is paramount for achieving a favorable outcome. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

Crafting a U.S. patent application is a complex undertaking, requiring years of expertise. Here are fundamental steps involved in preparing a U.S. patent application: 1. Provide a Detailed Description of the Invention: Patents are technical documents, and they must include sufficient detail to enable the reproduction of the invention ("practicing the invention"). Before an attorney begins to draft an application, a comprehensive written document providing details of the invention is crucial. Ensure this document includes enough technical information so that the invention can be reproduced. For mechanical inventions, accompanying drawings prove invaluable, while software inventions benefit from flow charts. Your patent attorney, equipped with technical expertise in your invention's domain, relies on this information to grasp the intricacies of your invention. 2. Draft Patent Claims: Drafting patent claims is one of the most challenging aspects of preparing a patent application, demanding substantial skill and experience. Once your attorney comprehends your invention, they can then begin to draft the patent claims (which define the scope of protection covered by the patent). Your feedback ensures that the invention has been accurately captured. Claims can be perplexing to non-experts, and it is common for me to walk my clients through the draft claims to ensure they are correct. You and your attorney should have consensus on the claims before further parts of the patent application are drafted. 3. Prepare Drawings: Drawings accompanying the patent application must illustrate every detail of the invention. Initially, drawings can be prepared either freehand or using graphic tools on a computer. Every item in the drawings that will be described in the patent application should receive a unique item number. Mechanical inventions should include drawings from numerous angles, while electrical or computer inventions often require block diagrams. Software inventions may require flow charts. It is essential to cross-reference the drawings with the claims to ensure every claim feature is illustrated accurately. 4. Draft the Specification: The specification provides a detailed description of how the invention is practiced. Each numbered item in the drawings should be described. If there are multiple ways to implement the invention, then provide a description of each alternative. Sufficient detail is required for a person skilled in the relevant technology to reproduce the invention. 5. Identify the Inventors: While some inventions may result from individual efforts, most are collaborative endeavors. U.S. patent law mandates accurate identification of all inventors. 6. File the Application: U.S. patent applications are filed through the USPTO website, a process demanding experience and adherence to numerous requirements. The individual navigating the USPTO's website must ensure all formal filing requirements have been met. Preparing and filing a patent application is an intricate process that unfolds over several weeks, requiring a substantial time investment. By following these steps and collaborating closely with your patent attorney, you can navigate the process effectively.

A fundamental principle called the Duty of Candor plays a crucial role in the patent application process. But what exactly does this term mean, and why is it important? Let's break it down in simple terms. Imagine your company develops new technology with tremendous market potential. Excitedly, you decide to apply for a patent to protect this invention. As you navigate through the patent application process, you encounter the Duty of Candor. So, what is the Duty of Candor? Essentially, it's a legal obligation that inventors and their representatives must be completely honest and forthright with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the patent application process. This means if you are aware of information that may adversely affect your ability to obtain a patent, then you must provide that information to the USPTO. So, what kind of information are you required to disclose to the USPTO? Essentially, anything known to the inventors or their representatives could adversely affect the patentability of your invention. This includes prior art such as patents, patent applications, publications, website content, or anything else that may potentially render your invention unpatentable. When should such information be shared with the Patent Office? The sooner, the better. Waiting until later stages of examination to disclose such information could result in significant fees. Failure to fulfill the Duty of Candor can have serious consequences. If you attempt to assert a patent and it is determined that the Duty of Candor was not satisfied, then your patent can be rendered unenforceable. The Duty of Candor entails numerous nuances, making it challenging for a layperson to determine whether it has been met. If you are unsure of whether information in your possession can affect your ability to obtain a patent, you should always bring that information to the attention of your patent attorney. They can provide guidance on how to address the situation. In conclusion, the Duty of Candor is a fundamental principle in the patent application process that requires inventors and their representatives to be honest and transparent with the USPTO. By fulfilling this obligation, you help to obtain the strongest patent possible. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

The journey from filing a patent application to receiving an issued patent varies in duration, but on average, it takes approximately two years. Several factors influence this timeline: 1. Adhering to Formalities: After being filed, a patent application undergoes a pre-examination stage to ensure all formalities are met. If the application was filed correctly, this stage typically lasts around three months. 2. Waiting for Examination to Begin: After completing pre-examination, the application is assigned to an examiner. The duration of examination depends on the backlog of the assigned examiner. Mechanical inventions face a backlog of about six months, while applications in electrical arts and computer software may experience delays ranging from six to eighteen months. 3. Restriction: Patent Office rules dictate that only one invention per application will be examined. If an application includes multiple inventions, the examiner will require the applicant to select one invention for examination, adding approximately three months to the process. Unselected inventions may be examined in separate applications. 4. Examination: During examination, a patent examiner conducts a search to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of the application based on prior art. If the examiner finds prior art that could prevent the application's allowance, a rejection occurs. The applicant then receives an office action detailing the rejection and has up to three months (extendable to six months with a fee) to respond. This cycle of rejection and response may repeat two or three times, lasting about a year in total. In some cases, if the examiner continues to refuse allowance, an appeal is required, adding nine to twelve months to the process. 5. Post-Allowance: Once an application is allowed, it undergoes additional formality review, and an issue fee must be paid. The patent is then issued approximately six weeks after the issue fee payment. While the timelines listed above are typical, exceptions may occur, and expedited examination options are available for an additional fee. In most cases, however, obtaining a patent entails a process spanning around two years. Understanding these timelines and factors can help navigate the patent acquisition process more effectively. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

It's a common scenario in the patent world: your patent application gets rejected by the Patent Office. This can happen for various reasons, often due to the complexities of prior art or misinterpretation of patent law by the examiner. So, what's the next step when faced with a rejection? Here are some options: 1. Engage in Argumentation: One approach is to engage in a dialogue with the examiner, known as traversal. You can challenge the rejection by demonstrating that the examiner's understanding of prior art or application of patent law is incorrect. By presenting a compelling argument supported by evidence, you may persuade the examiner to withdraw the rejection. 2. Amend the Claims: Since examination is based on a strict evaluation of claim language, amending the claims can often resolve issues. This may involve clarifying ambiguous language or introducing new language that distinguishes your invention from prior art cited by the examiner. Clear and specific language not found in prior art can lead to the withdrawal of the rejection. 3. File an Appeal: If your claims have been rejected multiple times, you have the option to file an appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This process involves submitting an appeal brief, wherein your attorney presents arguments against the rejection. The examiner also files a brief, and both are reviewed by a panel of three administrative patent judges. If the panel agrees with the examiner, the rejection stands; however, if they disagree, the rejection is overturned. Navigating through a patent application rejection can be challenging, but understanding your options and working closely with your patent attorney can help pave the way towards a successful outcome. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

There are over 190 countries in the world, and virtually all of them have intellectual property legislation. In today’s market, international protection of innovation for a global company is a must. In the absence of such protection, technology is copied without permission, and the organizations that invested heavily to develop that technology fail to receive a return on their investment. Therefore, if your global business is based on proprietary technology, protection of that technology in foreign countries is extremely important. How does one go about obtaining patent protection in a foreign country? What issues or concerns does a business owner need to be sensitive to? For small and midsize companies, partnering with a U.S. attorney like me who has a wealth of experience in foreign patent procurement can offer significant advantages. Unlike Fortune 500 companies with established networks of foreign attorneys, smaller enterprises need to tread carefully when engaging directly with foreign legal representatives. My experience with international patent matters can provide your company with invaluable insights and support. By fostering reciprocal relationships and maintaining an extensive network, I can streamline the patent procurement process while safeguarding your company's interests. Every country has different rules for filing a patent application and obtaining a patent. Certainly, U.S. and foreign patent procurement has similarities. There are, however, also significant differences. In Europe, for example, claims cannot be broadened after an application has been filed. China has the infamous “Rule 33,” which typically limits claim amendments to actual words that appeared in the patent specification at the time of filing. Singapore has exceptionally complex rules for requesting examination. Canada interprets the “Summary of the Invention” as a limitation on the scope of their claims. As an attorney with significant foreign filing experience, I am familiar with many of these differences between the U.S. and foreign patent systems. When I know that an application will be filed in a foreign country, I draft the patent application with these issues in mind to reduce costs and procure patents with greater scope of protection. Procurement costs, however, can quickly add up. Simply filing a completed patent application in Great Britain (i.e., without incurring any prosecution or grant costs) can cost around $3,000 (for an application of average size). In China, the costs associated with filing a patent application are around $4,500. In Japan, the costs associated with filing a patent application are more than $7,000. As you can imagine, if a company is trying to protect its technology with patents in multiple countries, the expense can be significant. Translation costs can also comprise a significant portion of the expense of foreign patent filings. Patent applications need to be translated into the language of the country in which the patent will be obtained. For a 25-page patent application, translation into Spanish can cost roughly $2,200, translation into Korean can cost roughly $2,400, and translation into Japanese can cost roughly $4,000. There are, however, ways to reduce cost. The Patent Cooperation Treaty, for example, allows one international patent application to be filed, delaying the decision to nationalize patents in individual countries. Similarly, the European Patent Office offers a centralized platform for filing and examining patents across multiple European countries, facilitating cost-effective and efficient patent registration. Of course, even if a company owns a foreign patent, that simply gives it the right to protect its intellectual property. If infringement does occur, the cost of stopping the infringement and obtaining damages can be significant. There are ways to try to manage those costs. In some countries, litigation might be the best way to proceed. In other countries, arbitration might be the most desirable option. One litigation jurisdiction in a foreign country may be better than another for adjudicating a particular type of controversy. One arbitrable body may be desired (or required) for a U.S. company over another. The attorneys that I work with in each foreign jurisdiction have personal knowledge of which forums are best for protecting a company’s interests. Foreign patent protection can be an expensive undertaking, but it remains a prudent investment for companies operating in global markets. The above information is provided for general knowledge, only. Always consult with a licensed attorney for help with specific issues or concerns.

Remember Morse code? Perhaps mention of the name conjures up movie images of telegraph operators communicating over long distances, by tapping out “dashes” and “dots” that correspond to letters of the alphabet. What many people do not realize is that Samuel Morse, inventor of Morse code, fought a protracted battle to protect his patent rights. One of his patent claims stands out: the use of electromagnetism to print “intelligible characters, signs or letters.” The U.S. Supreme Court declared the patent claim to be invalid because it was attempting to patent subject matter that was ineligible for patent protection. Today, determining eligible subject matter for patent protection has been a significant issue in intellectual property law. The landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank drastically reshaped the landscape of patentability, particularly concerning computer software. The aftermath of Alice witnessed a significant reduction in the ability to obtain patent protection for computer-implemented inventions, with numerous existing software patents becoming invalidated. Nonetheless, recent Federal Circuit cases have provided clarity to the intellectual property community on the patentability of software inventions. The eligibility of an invention for patent protection hinges on various criteria, including novelty and non-obviousness. Over the past few years, however, the focus on computer software has been whether it meets the requirements for patent eligible subject matter. The evolution of software-related patents took a pivotal turn with Bilski v. Kappos in 2012, when the Supreme Court invalidated a hedge fund software patent, deeming it an abstract idea. Subsequent decisions, such as Mayo v. Prometheus in the same year, established a two-step test for determining patent subject matter eligibility. This test scrutinizes whether a claim is based on an abstract idea or a natural phenomenon, and if so, whether it incorporates "significantly more" than the ineligible subject matter to be deemed patentable. The watershed moment arrived with the June 2014 Alice decision, which solidified the two-step test established in Mayo. This decision underscored that a generic computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Consequently, thousands of software patent applications were abandoned, and numerous patents were invalidated by courts post-Alice. However, subsequent Federal Circuit opinions have upheld the validity of software patents that successfully navigate the two-step Alice test. In the wake of Alice, the drafting of software patents has undergone a significant transformation, with a heightened focus on providing explanations of how each software invention achieved technological improvement. Thus, in the post-Alice world, patent applications need to explain how their inventions contribute to technological advancement. Writing this part of the software patent application is a skill that is honed over time, one that requires a nuanced understanding of both the technology and legal landscape. As a seasoned practitioner in the field, I have personally drafted numerous software patent applications that have met the stringent requirements laid out in the Alice framework, securing approval both from the Patent Office and federal courts. Through my experience, I have witnessed the evolving nature of patent law and the importance of adapting strategies to align with judicial precedent and technological advancements.