Revision as of 10:36, 26 January 2016 edit William Allen Simpson (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 31,499 edits give the grace period mentioned in intro its own section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:45, 26 January 2016 edit undo William Allen Simpson (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 31,499 edits m →First to invent: merge related sentences Next edit →
Line 17: 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 practicing the invention, etc.), the inventor's date of invention will be the date of conception. Thus, provided an inventor is diligent in actually reducing an application to practice, he or she will be the first inventor and the inventor entitled to a patent, even if another files a patent application, constructively reducing the invention to practice, before the inventor.<ref>[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2138_05.htm 2138.05 "Reduction to Practice" [R-5] - 2100 Patentability]</ref> However, the first applicant to file has the ''[[prima facie]]'' right to the grant of a patent. Should a second patent application be filed for the same invention, the second applicant can institute [[interference proceedings]] to determine who was the first inventor (as discussed in the preceding paragraph) and thereby who is entitled to the grant of a patent. Under the first-to-invent system, when two people claim the same invention, the USPTO would ~~institute~~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. === Examples ===

First to file and first to invent: Difference between revisions