Talk:First to file and first to invent

Duplicated in Prior art

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

Done. Gronky (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've added this to the end of the example:

However, if Tweety has published her idea before 2006, then this publication can a basis to rejecte or invalidate Tom or Jerry's patent.

If someone wants to add the detail of the dates before which Tweety's publication would have to take place, that'd be great. Gronky (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2012 (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]

In what way? Genuinely curious. The source seems to be a peer reviewed academic paper. -- Colin Barrett (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that one source was not sufficient to support this statement about the effects. I have removed the tag and corrected the quote, for now. Not sure the paper was peer reviewed. --Edcolins (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're right in that the site it was published on, SSRN, is a preprint site. It seems to also be available through the National Bureau of Economic Research, but it's tough to say how official that is. Maybe it should say "One study found", or something along those lines, to indicate that it's significant but perhaps not necessarily the consensus? --Colin Barrett (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have reworded the text accordingly. --Edcolins (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on prior art

Let's say A has an idea on January 1st, and B has the same idea on January 10th.

A works diligently on a patent application, which he files on January 20th.

Meanwhile, B wrote about her idea in a blog entry on January 11th.

Can A validly get a patent, or does B's publication of the idea constitute prior art?

(The question is for first-to-file, but if someone has an answer about first-to-invent or how this exposes a difference between them, that would be interesting too. This should be in the article.) Gronky (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]