Talk:First to file and first to invent

This is explained again in Prior art. Someone should take care of it...

Contradiction

The given example, added by User:65.110.29.163 and wikified by me, reports a first-to-file case in the United States, while the United States has a first-to-invent system. I am not sure whether the example is wrongly interpreted or whether the U.S. had not a first-to-invent system back in 1876. --Edcolins 08:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

According to Alexander Graham Bell "Bell got the patent because of the doctrine used" and oversimplification and wrong. 68.39.174.238 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

As discussed at Talk:Patent I have merged first to invent and first to file, and arbitrarily put the resulting article here. I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it though, but cannot think of a suitable article name. Any ideas? I'm sure the article also needs substantial work. Kcordina ^Talk 08:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

errors in article

I rewrote this article to correct the numerous errors in the original article. I have also cited to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure to support my statements (the original articled lacked any support whatsoever). The Example in the original article was also wrong and failed to properly apply U.S. law. The MPEP is not an authoritative source (like a treatise or Federal Circuit case), but it can be easily accessed by all (unlike many reported cases which require Westlaw or Lexis access).

The article says that 'constructive reduction to practice' should be distinguished from 'actual reduction to practice'. I'm not sure why. There is an implication that the latter is superior. I say it is different but equal. I don't see that the reference given supports the implication. Until some authority is given for the proposition, it should come out.

The article doesn't deal adequately with diligence. It implies you are either diligent or you're not. In practice, however, you may be diligent in fits and starts (or you may in fact be continuously diligent, but only be able in practice to prove diligence over part of the period in question). This is important, both in theory and practice. In interferences where the first to conceive and last to reduce to practice is not continuously diligent, his 'date of invention' will depend on his opponent's date of conception - because he has to prove diligence from before that date. The law does not (in general) provide an invention date, but a rule for determining who beats whom. And the rule is not transitive! You can (theoretically) get a situation where A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.Twr57 (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example doesnt describe...

The example doesn't describe if Tweety is immune to a patent filed by Tom or Jerry. Is it the case that because Tweety didn't file for patent, she does not recieve the patent, however because she concieved the idea earlier, no one can patent the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Tom or Jerry can get a patent depends on whether Tweety's work was published or not - if it was, they can't.Twr57 (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US now has a first-to-file system - article is outdated

See http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/inventions_and_patents/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.151.221 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just a bill? --Edcolins (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Passed Senate by 95 votes to 5 (with 87 votes specifically in favor of First-To File). How will it go in the House?Twr57 (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's passed the House but the bills are different enough that it needs to go into reconciliation before it can be given to the president. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/delaware/sen-chris-coons-urges-house-to-approve-compromise-on-patent-reform/ --Colin Barrett (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

The sources provided for Canada do not seem to be balanced enough to meet our neutrality policy. See WP:NPOV. --Edcolins (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]