Revision as of 00:11, 21 October 2018 edit Nealmcb (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 7,195 edits Note also prior art Tag: Visual edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:01, 23 October 2018 edit undo Edcolins (talk \| contribs) Administrators 52,866 edits removing sloppy sentence; a granted patent is presumed valid and its validity may be challenged Next edit →
Line 2: There is an important difference between the strict nature of the FTF under the [[European Patent Office\|European Patent Office (EPO)]] and the FITF system of the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office\|United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)]]. The USPTO FITF system<ref name=usptopressrel>[http://www.patentdocs.org/2013/02/uspto-issues-first-inventor-to-file-examination-guidelines-and-final-rule.html Zuhn: "USPTO Issues First-Inventor-to-File Examination Guidelines and Final Rule"]</ref> affords early disclosers some "grace" time before they need to file a patent,<ref name=kravets/> whereas the EPO does not recognise any grace period, so early disclosure under the FITF provisions is an absolute bar to later EPO patent. If an invention has been described by [[prior art]] or would have been [[Inventive step and non-obviousness\|obvious]] based on what has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid. == First to file ==

First to file and first to invent: Difference between revisions