Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousThe "Matrix" for First-Inventor-To-File: An Experimental Investigation into Proposed Changes in US Patent Law
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
The Patent Reform Act of 2009 would replace the current ?first-to-invent? (FTI) system with a new ?first-inventor-to-file? (FITF) system. While touted as a way to harmonize the US system with ?first-to-file? (FTF) systems used in other countries, an experimental investigation of a matrix of two hundred typical fact patterns for two competing inventors was analyzed under all three systems (FTI, FITF and FTF) to test this assumption. Based on the matrix analysis, it appears that if FITF is adopted there likely will be changes in applicant behavior and significant extra costs for at least several years as a result of the transition to a new system; and, it is unclear whether FITF really gets the US any closer to patent harmonization.
Caption: Scenarios where both parties have filed applications
The proposed FITF system has a tendency to behave as an entirely different system in certain scenarios, rather than as a midway point between the existing FTI and FTF systems. A raw analysis of the results reveals a discrepancy wherein a larger percentage of second inventors are awarded a patent under the FITF system than predicted by a shift toward a FTF system. A weighted analysis reflecting likely applicant behavior from the implementation of the FITF system emphasized, rather than diminished, these discrepancies with expected results.
It appears that the ?springing public disclosure? exception created under the proposed FITF system to replace the one-year grace period found in current US patent law is one of the primary reasons for the discrepancies. This exception allows applicants to control the start of the grace period that disqualifies the public disclosures and even prior filed applications of others from being prior art based on the timing of the applicant's own public disclosure. The springing nature of this exception provides unique incentives for applicants to manipulate the timing of the public disclosure of their inventions in order to manipulate the grace period, thereby creating results seemingly inconsistent with core principles of the existing FTI and FTF systems.
For a link to the entire paper, go to:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1518660
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on December 10, 2009 (boomark / email).
Private Investigators and Detectives
Services Provided by Private Investigators
Toyota Recalls 1.3 Million Toyota Corollas and Corolla Matrix
Toyota Recalls 1.3 Million Toyota Corollas and Corolla Matrix
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Wells Fargo Settles New Jersey State Investigation into Pick-a-Payment Mortgages
Wells Fargo Settles New Jersey State Investigation into Pick-a-Payment Mortgages
McAfee, Symantec
Settle Investigation into Automatic Antivirus Subscription Practices

Monday Book Review: Lincoln the Inventor
US Patent 7332211 - Phase separated nanoparticle matrix
US Patent 7414294 - Intermediate band core/shell quantum dots provided in organic matrix
US Patent 7323190 - Nanofiber matrix for stem cell delivery
Senate Patent Reform Bill on Prior Art Grace Period








