Content deleted Content added
rewording |
Walter Tau (talk | contribs) minor fixes to bring in line with the contemporary prospective. |
||
Line 2:
'''First to file''' (FTF) and '''first to invent''' (FTI) are legal concepts that define who has the right to the grant of a [[patent]] for an [[invention]]. Since 16 March 2013, after the USA abandoned its "first to invent/document" system, all countries operate under "first-to-file" patent priority requirement.<ref>{{cite news |title=Patent Reform Refuses To Die, Congress Keeps Cashing In |author=Zach Carter |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/patent-reform-drags-on_n_951128.html |newspaper=The Huffington Post |date=11 June 2011 |access-date=31 July 2013}}</ref>
There is an important difference between the strict nature of the FTF(First to file) under the [[European Patent Office|European Patent Office (EPO)]] and the FITF (First inventor to file) 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 (1 year) 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.
== First to file ==
Line 16:
Canada, the Philippines, and the United States had been among the only countries to use ''first-to-invent'' systems, but each switched to first-to-file in 1989, 1998 and 2013 respectively.
Invention in the U.S. is generally defined to comprise two steps: (1) conception of the invention and (2) [[reduction to practice]] of the invention. When an inventor conceives of an invention and ''diligently'' reduces the invention to practice (by filing a patent application, by
However, the first applicant to file has the ''[[prima facie]]'' right to the grant of a patent. Under the first-to-invent system, when two people claim the same invention, the USPTO would conduct an [[interference proceeding]] between them to review evidence of conception, reduction to practice and diligence. Interference can be an expensive and time-consuming process.
== Canada's change to first-to-file ==
Line 26:
== USA change to first-inventor-to-file (FITF) ==
The [[America Invents Act]], signed by Barack Obama on 16 September 2011,<ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/president-obama-signs-america-invents-act-overhauling-patent-system-stim 16 Sept 2011 whitehouse.gov press release re signature of AIA]</ref> switched U.S. right to the patent from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after 16 March 2013 and eliminated interference proceedings.<ref name=aiaeffective>[http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia-effective-dates.pdf USPTO: "America Invents Act: Effective Dates"]</ref>
Many legal scholars<ref>[http://www.docs.piausa.org/Article%20I%20and%20the%20First%20Inventor%20to%20File-%20Patent%20Reform%20or%20Doublespeak_%20=%20IDEA-vol50-no3-glenn-nagle.pdf Glenn and Nagle: "Article I and the First Inventor to File: Patent Reform or Doublespeak?", in IDEA—The Intellectual Property Law Review, Volume 50, Number 3 (2010)]</ref><ref>[http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/johnmars6&div=13&id=&page= Simon: "The Patent Reform Act's Proposed First-To-File Standard: Needed Reform or Constitutional Blunder?", in ''The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law'', 2006]</ref><ref>[http://www.rearden.com/public/090413_First_to_File_scholarly_papers_in_last_10_years-1.pdf Selective compilation of papers on FTF constitutionality published between 2001-2009 (9 papers)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720004424/http://www.rearden.com/public/090413_First_to_File_scholarly_papers_in_last_10_years-1.pdf |date=2011-07-20 }}</ref> have commented that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. [[Copyright Clause|Article I, Section 8, Clause 8]] of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "promote the Progress of ... useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.” These scholars argue that this clause specifically prohibits a first-inventor-to-file system because the term "inventor" refers to a person who has created something that has not existed before.
Line 32:
The change has not been short of detractors. For example, the [[IEEE]] stated in its submission to the [[House Judiciary Committee]], charged with the study of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, that "We believe that much of the legislation is a disincentive to inventiveness, and stifles new businesses and job growth by threatening the financial rewards available to innovators in U.S. industry. Passage of the current patent reform bill language would only serve to relax the very laws designed to protect American innovators and prevent infringement of their ideas."<ref name=ieee>{{Cite web |url=http://ieeeusa.org/policy/POLICY/2007/082707.pdf |title=Meredith and Grzelak: "Letter to House and Senate Leaders and Judiciary Committee Members Opposing Adoption of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145/H.R. 1908)". The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. – United States of America, 27 August 2007 |access-date=21 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130925094247/http://ieeeusa.org/policy/POLICY/2007/082707.pdf |archive-date=25 September 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Proponents argue that the FITF aligns the U.S. with the rest of the world,
== See also ==
| |||