Revision as of 09:12, 21 April 2006 edit Edcolins (talk \| contribs) Administrators 52,866 edits m minor changes ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:02, 11 May 2006 edit undo Kingdon (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 8,142 edits Add a few references Next edit →
Line 27: It is said, however, that the first to file system favours large companies who can afford to rapidly file patent applications, thereby gaining an advantage over smaller companies who are slower to file due to cost restraints. The first to invent system is therefore said to be beneficial in encouraging the growth of smaller companies. A potential problem with this argument is that a smaller company, filing second, would have to rely on interference proceedings to claim their patent, which may be beyond their economic reach and they are therefore no better off. == References == * [http://www.torys.com/publications/pdf/ARTech-19T.pdf From First-to-Invent to First-to-File: The Canadian Experience], Robin Coster, American Intellectual Property Law Association, April 2002. * [http://www.oblon.com/Pub/GholzFirsttoFile.html First-to-file or First-to-invent?], Charles L. Gholz, ''Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society'', 82 JPTOS 891, December 2000. * [http://www.inventions.org/resources/advisory/first.html First to Invent vs. First to File], Inventors Assistance League. Advocates first-to-invent. * [http://www.inventionconvention.com/inventorsvoice/report/ 1992 Special Summary Report; The Great Debate; First-to-invent vs. First-to-file and the International Harmonization Treaty], Stephen Gnass/Inventors Voice. Advocates first-to-invent as more friendly to the individual inventor. == See also ==

First to file and first to invent: Difference between revisions