Intellectual property (IP) litigation tends to be relatively expensive compared to other types of lawsuits. There are many reasons for that. Though the complexity of the legal issues involved and a tendency for extensive pre-trial discovery and use of expert witnesses contribute to the total costs.
Below are graphs showing average costs through various stages of a an infringement or misappropriation lawsuit in the U.S. A summary graph compares average costs for “small” patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret cases with less than $1,000,000 at risk. There are also individual graphs for patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret cases with different amounts at risk, that is, with different amounts of potential damages for infringement or misappropriation (in U.S. dollars). All data comes from the 2021 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey.
Comparison of Average “Small” IP Lawsuit Costs by Type of Case and Stage
Average Patent Litigation CostsAverage Copyright Litigation Costs
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Novelty and non-obviousness requirements for patentability are assessed based on the contents of the “prior art”, which can include information previously published by anyone—even by an inventor. Section 102 of the patent laws formally defines what qualifies as prior art in the USA. An earlier “printed publication” will usually count as prior art for novelty (anticipation) and obviousness assessments against a later patent application. Though there are some exceptions, including a one-year grace period that may exclude prior disclosures by an inventor.
The question at hand is about the legal requirements for something to qualify as a “printed publication” for patentability in the U.S. (since the adoption of the America Invents Act [AIA]) This mostly depends on whether relevant technical disclosures appeared in something was generally publicly accessible long enough ago. For the discussion that follows, we will simply assume that given materials contain some kind of relevant technical disclosure.
Examples of Printed Publications
Printed publications can be all sorts of things. They can include books, technical journal articles, web pages, videos, audio recordings, etc. This type of prior art is not limited to the particular format of the materials. In the Internet age, printed publications encompass more than just written text, and more than just hard copy materials.
But “printed publications” generally exclude products themselves. That is, a commercial product or the public use of a method/process would not normally be considered a “printed publication”, although they might instead fall within on-sale and/or public use prior art categories. Yet associated product manuals, product advertisements, and the like might qualify as printed publications.
“Printed Publications” Versus a “Patent” or “Application for Patent Published or Deemed Published”
Before going any further, it is important to note that U.S. law calls out patents and published patent applications separately from “printed publications”. (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)). But patents and published patent applications can be considered “printed publications” too. Patent-related publications can potentially qualify as prior art as any (or all) of a “printed publication”, something “patented,” and/or as a “a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b).” In other words, those categories are not mutually exclusive.
The important point here, which may be counter-intuitive, is that “printed publications” include but also go beyond patent-related publications. For that reason, the term “non-patent literature” (NPL) is sometimes used to describe a typical kind of non-patent prior art that falls under the category of printed publications. That terminology sometimes helps to highlight unique issues that can arise when seeking to establish that an NPL reference qualifies as prior art.
Public Accessibility
The first question in determining if something qualifies as a printed publication is determining whether it was published. Courts have said that “public accessibility” isthe touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a “printed publication”. A given reference will be considered publicly accessible only if it was made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter (or art) exercising reasonable diligence can locate it. There is no formula or checklist for making that determination. Whether a reference is publicly accessible is determined on a case-by-case basis based on all the facts and circumstances surrounding disclosure of the reference to members of the public.
There are really three ways something can be established as publicly accessible in the eyes of U.S. courts:
Cataloging/indexing – By establishing that a document was catalogued or indexed in a publicly accessible archive (e.g., a library catalog or Internet search engine) so that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art can locate it by exercising reasonable diligence and using available research tools, regardless of whether anyone actually accessed it;
Distribution/dissemination – By establishing that a document was distributed or disseminated (e.g., mailed, handedout in person, sent in a newsgroup electronic message, or announced orally at a conference and made available) in a sufficiently broad way, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that members of the public interested in and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art could obtain copies by exercising reasonable diligence; or
Public display (without literal distribution) – By establishing that materials (e.g., a temporarily displayed slide presentation, video shown on-site, poster, billboard, etc.) were publicly displayed for a sufficient time and in a sufficiently broad manner, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, so as to be sufficiently accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art by exercising reasonable diligence, even though copies of the materials were never distributed or indexed and the materials never physically left the presenter’s control.
Notably, courts have said that a sufficient public dissemination or display of materials can make them a “printed publication” even where those materials were never searchable and never indexed/cataloged. Cataloging or indexing something is just one among many ways that something can be considered published and publicly available.
Private communications do not count as printed publications, whether designed for the use of single persons or of a few restricted groups of persons. Anything that is reasonably expected to remain secret, such as private communications marked as confidential or not for distribution or exchanged under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), will not qualify as printed publication prior art. Although, sometimes courts disregard ambiguous confidentiality restrictions or read alleged confidentiality terms narrowly to still find public accessibility. When dissemination or display is asserted as the basis for public accessibility, it is necessary to look at certain factors to determine the reference was sufficiently publicly accessible to count as a “printed publication”. For instance, establishing public display requires looking at where and how the display occurred, including the openness, size, and nature of the display venue.
Also, technical accessibility alone is not enough if no one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably found the materials except by accident. The materials have to sufficiently publicly accessible to be considered “published”, by doing something that reasonably alerts the relevant public to their existence. Materials that are in a library or on web server, or randomly left lying in a public place, but that have not been indexed, disseminated to, or otherwise affirmatively announced to the interested public will not be considered generally publicly accessible, for example.
It may be helpful to consider a push vs. pull distinction regarding the public accessibility threshold. Publication in effect requires that materials be pushed out in some manner that allows the interested public to know about them. Such a “push” could be any of the three options described above: cataloging/indexing, public dissemination, or public display. An interesting facet of this is that anyone can publish a “printed publication.” There is no hierarchy of worthy/unworthy publications. Publication is not limited to certain channels (controlled by gatekeepers). But the mere fact that someone could “pull” information by specifically requesting it is not enough. It begs the question to say that information could be requested if there was no reason for someone to know in the first place that it could (technically) be requested. In short, printed publication status for patentability requires some kind of “push” out of the realm of private knowledge and into the realm of public accessibility.
Date of Public Availability
In order to qualify as prior art against a given claim, a printed publication must also be old enough. The essence of something being “prior art” is that it pre-dated a later effort to patent an invention. This requires looking whether a given publication was publicly accessible (published) before a critical date. The term “critical date” is often used in order to implicitly acknowledge that the date that divides prior art from things that are not old enough to be prior art varies depending on whether or not an exception applies—possible exceptions are discussed below. For a typical “printed publication” by a third party, where no exception applies, the critical date means before the effective filing date of the patent claim at issue.
The date of public availability is sometimes easily determined, but not always. This question is easiest when the materials in question are the kind subject to a predictable and reliable means of publication. For instance, using a U.S. patent application publication as a “printed publication” is straightforward because the patents are official U.S. government documents that are publicly available from the time they are issues and the issue dates printed on the face of patents are reliable indicators of the actual date of issuance (publication). This question is also fairly easy for foreign patent documents.
When in comes to many types of materials, however, dates may not appear on the materials themselves or those dates might not be sufficiently reliable. To use a famous example, Sigmund Freud’s book Die Traumdeutung[The Interpretation of Dreams] was first published in November of 1899 but the title page was post-dated to 1900. Also, dates appearing on a document may indicate something other than a date of general public accessibility. For example, the mere presence of a copyright notice date, printing date, Internet server upload date, or the like on reference itself will not necessarily satisfy public availability evidentiary requirements. But publication by an “established” publisher on something bearing traditional hallmarks of publication (a book’s ISBN, etc.) may be sufficient in AIA trials before the USPTO’s Patent Trial & appeal Board (PTAB).
There can also be disputes about revisions or different versions of a given publication. This is especially true for online materials. Sometimes a publication date may reflect only the initial publication date. But it may not account for the dates that revisions, modifications, or later additions took place. The date of public accessibility is assessed on the basis of the particular version put forward as potential prior art, and cannot be assumed to match that of a substantively different version.
Legal Standards for Evidence of Publication
To complicate matters, use of “printed publication” evidence in formal patent examination or disputes requires satisfying rules around the use and introduction of evidence. Different evidentiary standards will apply depending on where and how patentability or validity is being assessed.
During regular examination of a new patent application at the USPTO, a relatively low evidentiary standard is applied. A date appearing on a document can establish its publication for examination purposes unless the applicant challenges it. (MPEP § 2128).
However, higher standards are applied in contentious proceedings, including IPR proceedings and during infringement suits in courts. In those situations, there are rules against hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802 and 803) and rules requiring authentication of evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 901 and 902). These requirements may necessitate use of a witness to authenticate something put forward as a “printed publication” and its alleged publication date. This can include testimony from a librarian who cataloged something as of a particular date or a computer forensic expert able to retroactively determine the date of publication.
Web pages are a common type of printed publication evidence for which the publication date normally needs to be established beyond just a date that appears on the web page itself. Aside from witness testimony, demonstrating a clear reliable process for capturing, preserving, and presenting the web page, such as using the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine,” might be acceptable. (See https://archive.org/legal/faq.php).
Complicating matters still further is that a preponderance of the evidence standard is applied in all USPTO matters while a higher clear & convincing evidence standard is applied in courts. So the PTAB may accept something as a printed publication while a district court might not, based on these different evidentiary burdens (under essentially the same evidentiary rules).
Potential Exceptions
A printed publication will not count as prior art if (a) it was by an inventor within a one-year grace period before the patent application’s effective filing date or (b) the publication is by another but an inventor had previously publicly disclosed the invention (within the grace period).
“(a) Novelty; Prior Art.-A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) Exceptions.–
(1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.-A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if–
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.-A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if-
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. [see also § 102(c) regarding inventions under joint research agreements that may satisfy this provision]
This rather long list of possible exceptions is no doubt confusing. But some general points may aid in understanding the exceptions.
First, the exceptions under § 102(b) fall into two categories depending on whether the alleged prior art is put forward under § 102(a)(1) or under § 102(a)(2). Here, note that § 102(a)(2) applies only to U.S. patents and published patent applications (plus PCT international application publications designating the U.S.). So any non-patent materials like books, journal articles, web pages, and the like will only be able to qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1) and only the exceptions under § 102(b)(1) need to be considered. Similarly, any foreign patents or published applications will only be able to qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1) and only the exceptions under § 102(b)(1) need to be considered.
Second, under the § 102(b)(1) exceptions that apply to a “disclosure in a printed publication,” there are two possibilities: (A) disclosures made by (or on behalf of) an inventor within the one-year grace period, and (B) where an inventor made a qualifying public disclosure that pre-dated the printed publication. Where they apply, these exceptions establish a “critical date” one year before the effective filing date of the inventor’s patent application (assessed claim-by-claim). In practical terms, exception (B) will rarely arise, partly because it requires satisfying exception (A) plus additional requirements. The more common of the two exceptions is that an inventor’s own printed publication disclosures up to one year prior to a new patent application filing will not count against that inventor as prior art in the U.S.
Illustration of Timeline for U.S. Patent Filing Grace Period
One of the more important aspects of these exceptions is that an inventor’s own prior patent application may not qualify as prior art against that inventors own later application depending on when the prior application is published. This situation can arise when a later application does not formally claim priority to the inventor’s own prior application.
These exceptions to prior art status are rather unique to U.S. patent law. Most other countries follow more of an absolute novelty approach, with no grace period for delayed patent filings. So keep in mind that every jurisdiction will have its own rules for what counts as prior art and those rules offer differ from those in the U.S.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Patent marking can be important for obtaining full recovery of infringement damages. When enforcing a patent against an infringer in the United States, damages for infringement of a patented article can usually be recovered only from the date the infringer had actual or constructive notice of the patent(s), whichever comes first. Actual notice requires the affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement by the patentee to the accused infringer, such as in a cease-and-desist letter or filing an infringement lawsuit. Constructive notice is established by the patentee properly marking patented articles, regardless of whether a particular infringer actually sees that patent notice on products.
The following is a brief overview of basic U.S. patent marking legal requirements as well as guidance about how to properly implement patent marking. A more detailed treatment (with extensive examples) is provided in the Patent Marking Guide.
The U.S. Marking Requirement
The U.S. patent laws provide the following statutory marking requirement:
“Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word ‘patent’ or the abbreviation ‘pat.’, together with the number of the patent, or by fixing thereon the word ‘patent’ or the abbreviation ‘pat.’ together with an address of a posting on the Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address, that associates the patented article with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.”
These statutory marking requirements apply to all types of U.S. patents: utility, design, and plant. Having a marking requirement helps to avoid innocent infringement situations, among other things.
Patent Marking Provides Constructive Notice
Marking patented articles provides constructive notice to the public that an article is patented. To be legally sufficient to establish constructive notice, the patentee must be able to prove that substantially all of the patented articles being distributed were properly marked, and that once marking was begun, the marking was substantially consistent and continuous. If marking is defective at first, curing those defects going forward is possible. But full compliance with marking requirements to provide constructive notice to infringers is not achieved until the time the patentee consistently marked substantially all of the patented products, and if marking was deficient for a time then constructive notice will not be provided unless and until proper marking occurs with subsequent sales.
Possible Exceptions to Marking Requirements
The most important exception to the marking requirement is where the patentee has not sold any patented articles. When there are no products to mark, there is no failure to mark and therefore no bar to recovery of pre-suit damages.
Additionally, because the marking statute refers only to a “patented article”, patents with method or process claims are treated differently. Neither marking (constructive notice) nor actual notice is required to obtain back damages for infringement of asserted patents having only method or process claims. For patents having both apparatus and method claims, marking might still be required (if apparatus claims are asserted) and is therefore recommended.
Licensee(s) and Other Authorized Parties Must Mark Too
Marking requirements apply not only to the patentee but anyone making, selling, or offering for sale the patented article “for or under” the patentee or importing it into the U.S. Where a patent is licensed to another, expressly or impliedly, or is the subject of a covenant not to sue or the like, the other entity is required to mark as well. Authorized activities by an outsourced manufacturer or authorized seller are treated as if they are by the patentee in terms of marking requirements in this respect. Failure of a licensee or other authorized user to consistently mark substantially all licensed products will frustrate efforts to establish constructive notice. This requirement for licensees and authorized users is subject to a rule of reason. Some instances of omitted marking by others might be excused so long as the patentee makes reasonable efforts to ensure their compliance with marking requirements. It is recommended that any license for a U.S. patent obligate the licensee to comply with marking requirements. If that cannot be done, but a part (sub-component) is sold so that an authorized downstream reseller or importer will use it to assemble a patented article, that the part specifically intended for use in the patented combination carry a “for use under” patent marking notice.
How to Implement Patent Marking: Two Possibilities
There are two ways to mark patented articles in accordance with U.S. law: physical or virtual marking.
Physical Marking
Physical patent marking (which can also be called conventional or traditional marking) involves fixing notices on the patented articles themselves in a way that associates the patented article with the number of the patent. Such a notice must include the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the number of the patent.
If the nature of the patented article means such a notice cannot be fixed to the patented article itself, such as due to size constraints or where the article is a fluid or powder, the notice can instead be placed on a label fixed either to the patented article or to a package containing one or more of the patented articles. This is an alternate form of physical marking that is appropriate if (and only if) there is a legitimate reason the marking notice cannot be directly fixed to the article. And that reason should involve more than mere convenience or subjective preference.
An example of a proper physical patent marking notice (for the fictitious U.S. Pat. No. 00,000,000) would be the following fixed directly on an article covered by the claims of the indicated patent:
Pat. 00,000,000
If multiple patents apply to the same patented article, they can be listed together. It is not necessary to repeat the word “patent” or abbreviation “pat.” before each patent number in such a list. Pluralizing the word “patent” is generally fine, as is the presence of an additional word or abbreviation, such as in “patent number 00,000,000” or “pat. nos. XX,XXX,XXX and YY,YYY,YYY”. The use of “U.S. patent” or “U.S. pat.” would also be acceptable. The text of the notice should be in English.
Virtual Marking
Virtual patent marking is an acceptable alternative to physical marking. It can be useful in situations where all the patent information required to provide constructive notice cannot easily fit on the patented article or even its label, such as where there are multiple patents that apply to an article that is fairly small in size. As the number of digits in patent numbers increase, this sort of difficulty increases. Virtual marking can also be helpful in situations where different patents are associated with different products but having multiple product-specific notices is burdensome—a single notice template might be used listing a URL for a web page with patent association information for multiple products. For instance, virtual marking can help minimize the need to replace or modify molds used to create a patent marking notice directly on molded articles as new patents issue.
Implementing virtual patent marking involves fixing notices on the patented articles themselves in a way that associates the patented article with the number of the patent. Such a virtual marking notice must use the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.” together with an address of a posting on the Internet (that is, a web page URL), accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address.
If the nature of the patented article makes means such a notice cannot be fixed to the patented article itself, the virtual marking notice (indicating “patent” or “pat.” together with a URL) can instead be placed on a label fixed either to the patented article or to a package containing one or more of the patented articles. This is an alternate form of virtual marking that is appropriate if (and only if) there is a legitimate reason the virtual marking notice cannot be directly fixed to the article. And that reason should involve more than mere convenience or subjective preference.
An example of a proper virtual patent marking notice fixed on a patented article or its label is the following:
Pat. www.example.com/patents
The main feature of virtual patent marking is that the information associating the patented article with the number(s) of the patent(s) that cover it appears on a freely-accessible web page rather than directly on the article or its label. There is still a requirement for a notice on the patented product or its label. A marking web page, alone, is insufficient unless there is also a proper notice on the patented product or its label to direct people to that web page’s address. Moreover, a virtual marking notice on a product or its package is insufficient without an acceptable posting accessible from the identified Internet address.
The difference between physical and virtual marking really involves the manner of conveying the required association between the patent number(s) and the patented article. With traditional physical patent marking, the association is implicit in terms of which patent numbers are including in or omitted from a notice fixed to a particular product or its label. In virtual marking, the notice fixed to the product or its label merely directs the public to a web page but the web page must further provide an association between given patent(s) and the specific product(s) that practice those patent(s).
Courts have said that virtual patent marking does not allow a patentee to avoid the traditional burden of determining which patent(s) apply to specific products and indicating that patent-to-product association. The patentee cannot shift that burden to the public. A web page that presents a “research project” forcing visitors to determine patent-to-product association(s) on their own fails to provide constructive notice. Any web page lacking the required “association” between the patent(s) and patented article(s) is legally deficient and will not provide constructive notice allowing recovery of pre-suit infringement damages.
Certain courts have found the following to be insufficient for virtual marking:
A web page listing all of a company’s patents with an indication that “one or more” listed patents “may be used” by unspecified products within a stated product category (cite)
A web page listing multiple patent numbers/titles and grouping them by product category, without indicating which specific products within each category were covered by specific patents (cite)
A table on a web page listing patent numbers and titles but lacking any product information (where the company sold multiple products and one was unrelated to its patents) (cite)
Patent-to-product associations indicated somewhere other than on the virtual patent marking web page (cite)
Failing to put a notice indicating a virtual marking URL on hardware sold by a licensee that had pre-installed software that made the combined hardware-plus-software product subject to an asserted patent (cite)
False Patent Marking Prohibited
An important related concept is false patent marking. False marking generally involves marking products as patented when they are not, or marking products as “patent pending” when no patent application has been filed, with an intent to deceive. It also applies to intentional counterfeiting. Penalties apply to intentional false marking (35 U.S.C. § 292). Although the patent laws exclude from the scope of false marking the indication of an expired patent that once applied to the marked product. Also, there is no liability for honest mistakes about whether or not a patent applies.
It is important to only use patent marking where there is a reasonable basis to believe that the product is covered by the indicated patent(s). Patents that do not apply to a given product must not be marked on it (consider also any invalidation or cancellation of a given patent for continued marking). In the virtual marking context, patent-to-product associations must be specific enough to avoid false marking. Imprecise, blanket statements on virtual marking web pages implicating multiple patents and multiple products might give rise to false marking if done for purposes of deceiving the public about which patents, if any, apply to particular products. More generally, avoid marking products with any “patented” language that is confusing, geographically vague, or misleading with respect to that product’s patent status in the USA.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
If you are interested in patenting a new invention, or simply interested in assessing its patentability, a helpful early step is to prepare an invention disclosure. Such disclosures gather relevant technical information, as well as details about the identity of all potential inventors. The invention disclosure should be written and should further include drawings or other visual aids. It should be kept confidential. There is no “official” government form for an invention disclosure, though companies may have a form for internal use.
The following sample invention disclosure forms can be downloaded and used to document a new invention for patent purposes:
The main purpose of preparing an invention disclosure is to convey relevant detail details about the structure and configuration of the invention, how it functions, what is believed to be significant about the invention in relation to what has been done before (the “prior art”), and potentially other things that might affect the ability to patent the invention. This disclosure should be prepared by the inventor(s) themselves. It is usually not fancy or long. These sorts of disclosures are simply meant to gather basic, essential technical information and to point out what are considered the most important features. A patent attorney and/or patent searcher can then use the disclosure to gain an understanding of the invention in order to prepare a patent application or conduct a patentability search.
There may be additional documentation and information needed beyond what appears in an invention disclosure. Requests for more technical information are common. For example, patent attorneys will usually conduct at least one inventor interview to gather more technical information for purposes of patenting. But an invention disclosure is a starting point. Inventor interviews are much more productive if the patent attorney has some relevant drawings and other materials beforehand. That allows the patent attorney to have some sense of what the invention is about in order to ask better and more pointed questions.
It is important that an invention disclosure mention all the important features of the invention that might be patentable. Patent attorneys can ask follow-up questions, but they are not mind-readers. Omitting some major aspect of an invention on the invention disclosure entirely is a common mistake. Another common error is to focus on commercial marketability information, omitting technical details about what an invention really is and how it works that matter most for patenting.
An invention disclosure should also be relatively short and focused. While voluminous technical materials might have value for a patent attorney at certain stages of patent application preparation, it is inefficient for a patent attorney to read through dozens or hundreds of pages of such materials without some guidance. And an attorney might not fully or immediately appreciate what is new and inventive in merely “raw” technical data. An invention disclosure should be like a beacon pointing out what the inventor(s) consider to be most significant, at least as a starting point.
Invention disclosure forms that are signed and dated can sometimes provide useful records about who developed a given invention and when. Though a confidential write-up by itself will generally not preserve any patent rights—filing a patent application is required to do that. And there may be bar dates or deadlines by which a patent application must be filed.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
For pending patent applications, office actions are commonly sent by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting and/or objecting to aspects of the application on the merits. The applicant must respond to an office action within a certain response period in order to avoid abandoning the patent application. The back-and-forth communications between the USPTO and the applicant is called “prosecution”. Nearly all U.S. patent applications receive at least one office action. Yet most applicants are able to overcome the rejections/objections to obtain a patent. This means applicant responses to office actions are important in obtaining patents. But how should the applicant respond?
Overview
The best way to respond to an office action will vary for one case to the next. The most appropriate response strategy depends on the specific context. Generally, the following factors will influence how best to respond (if at all):
Specific rejections and/or objections made in the office action
Law and procedures governing the rejections/objections
Scope and content of the patent application:
current claims
original disclosure of the applicant’s invention (support/written description)
Applicant’s overall patenting strategy
In any situation, typical responses will consist of arguments or a combination of amendments and arguments. Any response that contains an amendment is called an “Amendment”. A response that contains only arguments can be called a “Response”, though the USPTO still classifies these as a type of amendment. Certain other types of information and accompanying filings, such as petitions, may also be submitted together with a response in some circumstances. Payment of official fees may also be required with a response, such as extra claim fees or extension of time fees.
The Specific Rejections/Objections
Not surprisingly, the appropriate way to respond to an office action depends on the particular rejections and/or objections being made. Though a compliant response generally needs to address all of the rejections and objections made in the office action. It is possible to informally group rejections and objections into three categories: (1) prior art-based rejections; (2) eligibility rejections; and (3) formality rejections and objections.
Prior art-based rejections are ones that assert particular claims of an application are not patentable based on what was already known in one or more cited prior art references. These include rejections based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102), also called lack of novelty, or based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Whenever there are rejections made based on cited prior art, the applicant should consider what the cited art actually discloses, teaches, and suggests, and whether the office action accurately characterizes those teachings and disclosures. It is common for applicants to disagree with the patent examiner about the scope of the prior art. These are often factual arguments about what was or was not actually known in the prior art.
Eligibility rejections deal with questions of whether the subject matter of the invention is eligible for patent protection. These usually pertain to the utility requirement for utility patent applications (35 U.S.C. § 101). Though design patents (35 U.S.C. § 171) and plant patents (35 U.S.C. § 161) have different eligibility requirements. Abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patent eligible in the USA. Eligibility/lack of utility rejections tend to be most common for certain types of technologies, such as software-implemented inventions, methods of medical diagnosis and treatment, etc. Responding to these rejections can often be challenging.
Formality rejections are ones that generally deal with the form of the patent application. These are very often about the procedures and technicalities that applicants must comply with. These include rejections based on indefiniteness or lack of enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112), and objections to the drawings or specification or for informalities like typographical, spelling, or grammatical errors in the claims. Formality rejections are sometimes cured through corrective amendments, though they can also be argued sometimes.
Applicable Law and Procedures
Office actions are prepared by patent examiners who must follow the patent laws, and interpretations of those statutes by courts, as well as USPTO regulations and procedures. In general, patent examination in the U.S. follows the guidance and procedures set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP). The MPEP is usually the first place to look for guidance about the legal standards and procedures that a patent examiner is supported to follow.
Any rejections or objections set out in an office action must comply with applicable law. Applicants will often disagree with an examiner about legal requirements to sustain a rejection. It is common for applicants to argue that an examiner has not met his or her burden to reject a particular claim of a patent application. These are often legal arguments about what the law requires (or does not require).
Scope and Content of the Patent Application
A suitable office action response will depend on what is recited in current claims and in the original disclosure (specification) of the application. Any office action will have been based on the way the applicant’s invention is disclosed and claimed. The way that the applicant has presented the invention in the application can vary a lot. Applicants have a lot of discretion in how they do so. This means the application itself is an important starting point in determining how best to respond to the office action.
The claims of the application recite the scope of the exclusive legal rights sought in the invention. That is, the claims define the invention sought to be patented. Applicants can usually amend the claims to adjust their scope and format. New claims can also sometimes be presented. Narrowing amendments might be made distinguish the claimed invention from cited prior art, for instance. Or clarifying claim amendments might be made to resolve formality rejections or objections. The implications of claim amendments can be significant. Narrowing amendments reduce the scope of exclusive rights in any resultant patent. And amendments can also result in prosecution history estoppel, which limits the interpretation and scope of enforceable rights. But the key is that the claims can potentially be amended in order to overcome rejections and/or objections.
The rest of the patent application (or specification) is significant in terms of how it discloses the invention. For instance, there may be explicit definitions of certain terms used in the claims that are implicated by a rejection in an office action. Also, the scope of the original disclosure (the “written description”, which includes any drawings) is in most respects fixed at the time the patent application was filed. An applicant cannot add “new matter” to the application after filing. This is often important because any claim amendments must have support in the original disclosure. An applicant cannot try to avoid cited prior art by amending the claims to recite something “new” that was not originally disclosed. So the original application constrains what sorts of later amendments are permitted.
Applicant’s Patenting Strategy
Lastly, the applicant’s overall patenting strategy will play a major role in how best to respond to an office action. These are often questions about what claim scope the applicant desires and what scope the applicant is willing to accept or settle for.
For example, business objectives are important. A patent application might disclose multiple possible embodiments of an invention with different configurations, features, etc. Some of those things might be merely optional or have been omitted from commercial versions of the invention. While certain response strategies might result in allowance and grant of a patent, any that depart from the embodiment(s) of the invention that the applicant is actively commercializing might have limited practical value. The relationship of a given application to other pending applications or granted patents, if any, can also be significant. As can the potential for a further, related (continuing) application.
There may be timing considerations too. Sometimes an applicant wants to obtain a granted patent as quickly as possible. Alternatively, it may be desirable to slow down patent examination to allow time to determine which disclosed embodiment of the invention seems the most commercially viable.
Additionally, the applicant’s budget and available resources can play a significant role. Official fees and attorney fees associated with further pursuit of patent protection can be significant. Applicants usually desire to have broad exclusive patent rights in their invention. But broad claims are often much harder to obtain. There is frequently greater effort and expense involved in pursuing broad claims, which is why applicants might settle for narrower claims. On the other hand, there can be long-term cost savings associated with maintaining a single patent rather than multiple patents, which might suggest making a more robust response to try to avoid additional patent filings. In short, budget constraints and business considerations will sometimes influence the way an office action response is prepared aside from the merits of the case.
Summary
There are many—sometimes competing—factors that will influence how to respond to a patent application office action. There is no one right way to respond. The most appropriate response strategy will take into account the many different considerations, backed by knowledge of the applicable law and procedures as well as an understanding of the technology involved with the invention. The overview given here is really only a basic introduction. Other options may be available in specific situations that are beyond the scope of this introduction. Given the complexity of patent law a patent attorney will generally be aware of the full range of options and can advise about specific cases.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
There are a number of different types of patents and patent applications. The available types of patents and patent applications also vary by country. Before turning to those specifics, an important initial distinction to note is between a patent application and a granted patent.
Patent Applications Versus Granted Patents
A patent and a patent application are not the same thing. This is a common source of confusion for those unfamiliar with patent law.
Patent Applications
A patent application is essentially a request by an inventor/applicant to obtain a patent. It is a custom-prepared document rather than a template form that is filled-in. Simply filing a patent application does not by itself entitle the applicant or inventor to enforceable legal rights. More is required to secure enforceable exclusive rights in an invention. Filing a patent application is just the first step in that process. Importantly, applications generally have to undergo an official examination to assess patentability. The applied-for invention may or may not be patentable.
Pending patent applications are normally (but not always) published after approximately 18 months. This means that there are publicly-available “patent application publications” or “published patent applications”. But these still only pertain to a (pending) patent application as opposed to a (granted) patent. A patent application publication, alone, is not enforceable.
There is really nothing final about a patent application when it comes to rights in an invention. Whether published or unpublished, the existence of a patent application really only means that someone currently is or was in the past pursuing patent protection. A good analogy is somebody filing a complaint to a commence a lawsuit: they hope to win, eventually, but merely initiating the lawsuit is not the same as a final judgement on the merits. There can be changes to a patent application while it is pending. So the published version of a given application may not fully reflect its current contents. And patent applications can be abandoned entirely.
Granted Patents
A patent is granted (or issued) by a government as a “public franchise” and gives the owner(s) exclusive rights to an invention. The scope of the enforceable legal rights are defined by the claim(s) of the patent. A patent is also enforceable only in a given jurisdiction. There is no such thing as an international patent enforceable throughout the world. So obtaining exclusive legal rights in multiple countries usually requires obtaining patents in each of those individual countries—though a few regionally-enforceable patents exist outside the USA. In the U.S., a granted patent is presumed valid because it has undergone pre-grant examination to assess patentability. Though even granted patents can still be challenged.
Every patent starts out as a patent application. And there may be multiple patent applications related to a given patent. But, on the other hand, any given patent application might or might not turn into a granted patent. A patent office may reject the patent application because the claimed invention is unpatentable, for instance. Or an applicant may simply abandon an application before a patent is granted for a variety of reasons.
Patent Families
Patents and patent applications that are formally related to each other are often referred to as a patent “family”. This includes reference to “parent” and “child” patents and applications.
Types of Patents
There are three types of patents available in the United States for different types of inventions:
Utility
Design
Plant
Utility patents are directed to useful inventions. If someone refers merely to a “patent”, chances are they mean a utility patent. Most U.S. patents are utility patents. In other countries these may have a slightly different name, like invention patents in the People’s Republic of China.
Design patents are directed to inventive ornamental designs of useful articles. They do not cover functional features or designs in the abstract—unconnected to an article of manufacture. In some other countries, designs are not covered under patent laws but instead as either “industrial designs” that are a unique type of protection or something closer to trademark (trade dress) protection.
Plant patents cover inventive asexually reproduced plants. Some inventions related to plants can be protected by utility patents, which is to say that a plant patent is not the only possible type of patent protection available for plant-related inventions.
The types of available patents are not the same around the world. In some countries, utility models or petty patents are available. But those types of patents do not exist in the USA.
Types of Patent Applications
There are a number of different types of patent applications in the USA:
Provisional
Nonprovisional
Continuing Applications:
Divisional
Continuation
Continuation-in-Part (CIP)
PCT International Application (and associated National Phase Entry)
Hague International Design Application
Reissue
Provisional applications are not examined but can be relied upon by a later-filed non-provisional application claiming “priority” to the provisional. They serve as a kind of temporary placeholder to preserve rights to file a nonprovisional application within a year. Provisional applications are available only for utility and plant inventions. They are not available for design inventions. The U.S. and a few other countries permit provisional applications but most countries do not.
A nonprovisional application is essentially just a regular patent application. It can be an application for a utility, design, or plant invention. Nonprovisional applications in the U.S. undergo substantive examination and can potentially result in a granted patent.
Continuing applications are special types of nonprovisional applications that claim priority to an earlier, co-pending domestic U.S. nonprovisional application or PCT international application designating the U.S. But an application with a priority claim to a prior foreign application or U.S. provisional application is not considered a continuing application. What is called a “divisional” application in many other countries might be called either a “continuation” or “divisional” application in the U.S.
The PCT system, which is administered by a United Nations agency (WIPO), provides a sort of application clearinghouse to facilitate the pursuit of patent protection in various participating countries. But the PCT system still requires action in individual countries or regions. At the start, a (single) PCT international application that designates selected participating countries (usually all participating countries) is filed in a “receiving office”. The international application can then later enter the national phase (or regional phase) in one or more designated countries or regions. A PCT national (or regional) phase entry is actually not separate from the PCT international application but merely represents a different (national/regional) phase in the life of the same international application.
Hague international design applications are roughly the equivalent of a PCT application but for design inventions.
Reissue applications are applications to correct an error in an issued patent. In other words, reissues only arise after a patent has already been granted. Broadening reissues, which enlarge the scope of the claim(s), must be filed within two years of grant of the underlying patent. Other (non-broadening) reissue applications are not subject to the two-year filing deadline. Grant of a reissue results in surrender of the original patent.
Have an invention you would like to patent? Have a brand you would like to register as a trademark? Concerned about infringing someone else’s intellectual property? Is someone else infringing your IP? Need representation in an IP dispute? Austen is a patent attorney / trademark attorney who can help. These and other IP issues are his area of expertise. Contact Austen today to discuss.
There are three types of patents available in the United States: utility patents, plant patents, and design patents. Each type of patent addresses different types of inventions. What does a design patent cover?
A design patent covers a new, original ornamental design for an article of manufacture. (35 U.S.C. § 171). Put another way, a design patent protects the overall visual appearance of a useful article. This can involve surface ornamentation applied to or embedded in the article, the shape of the article itself, or combinations of such things.
Front Page of Albert Einstein’s U.S. Design Patent No. D101,756 (left) and Front Page of U.S. Design Patent No. D168,677 assigned to Apple, Inc. (right); see also, e.g., Thomas Rinaldi, Patented: 1,000 Design Patents (2021)
It is important to note what design patents do not cover. They do not protect designs in the abstract that are unconnected to an article of manufacture. An original artistic painting is copyrightable but cannot be the subject of a design patent because there is no article of manufacture present. Also, design patents do not cover useful features as such, only ornamentation. Useful aspects are properly addressed only in utility patents. Anything with an appearance entirely dictated by function lacks ornamentality. However, a design patent must relate to a useful article and aspects of the claimed design can be useful, so long as there is visual ornamentation that—as a whole—goes beyond the purely functional aspects.
In many other countries, designs are not covered by patent law but rather “industrial designs” are registered as a different type of intellectual property (IP). Other countries sometimes administer industrial design registrations in a manner adjacent to or related to trademarks.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Businesses usually assign primary responsibility for patents and patenting of the company’s new inventions to a particular person or department. But who should have that responsibility? There is really no right or wrong answer. Different companies handle this differently. Though there are some things to consider that may suggest the best way to assign responsibility for patents.
If a company is active enough with patents, it may have a dedicated intellectual property (IP) department or group with in-house patent attorneys taking primary responsibility. However, the question dealt with here is really how to assign responsibility for patents in the absence of dedicated in-house IP staff.
There is a Range of Possibilities
First off, let us take a brief look at the possibilities. Responsibility for patents could be given to any of the following departments that exist in many companies:
Engineering/Research & Development (R&D)
Legal (including an IP group within legal)
Finance/Accounting
Sales & Marketing
Responsibility can also be assigned to individual people in a company, often an executive, officer, or in-house counsel. These people might be the heads of the departments listed above. In smaller businesses, we could add to that list the CEO, president, general manager, or a member-owner of a limited liability company (LLC).
Assigning primary responsibility does not mean other departments are excluded from patent decision-making. And sometimes budgetary allocations for patents might be split between different departments, such as allocating some or all patent-related fees to engineering/R&D’s budget while a legal department maintains responsibility for overseeing day-to-day patenting activities. Inter-departmental committees can also be formed.
Key Considerations
The ideal way to look at where primary responsibility for patenting should be placed within a company is to look at what will best achieve the company’s overall objectives and goals. Those will not always be the same. For some companies, filing as many patents as possible is the goal. For others, minimizing overhead and cost-cutting is more important than patents. There are endless possibilities. Though in many situations, the company’s goals will not explicitly address how patents fit into the picture. Figuring out how patents might advance larger company goals is usually part of those very responsibilities. But there are a few recurring issues that may influence who should have primary responsibility for patents.
First, consider typical patent expenses as a proportion of a company’s overall budget, and the anticipated volume of patent activity. In small companies, the cost of seeking even a single patent may be substantial compared to other expenses, whereas in a large multinational company any individual patent has an insignificant impact on a company-wide budget. This tends to affect how (and how much) responsibility is delegated. The volume of patenting is also important. This is both a matter of the cumulative budget needed for patent activities but also the likely workload that supervision of a patent portfolio presents to the responsible person or department.
Intra-company rivalries may influence assignment of patent responsibilities. Different departments may compete against each other for resources and budget allocations. Responsibility for patenting might be seen as a way to exert control over certain budgetary issues. This has the potential to produce dysfunctional situations. One department with responsibility may try to under-utilize patenting in order to effectively (if somewhat surreptitiously) re-allocate budget resources elsewhere. Is that in line with company-wide goals? Consider the possibility and likelihood of this occurring when assigning these responsibilities.
Another important consideration is bandwidth. It makes little sense to assign patent responsibilities to a person or department with no time or capacity. This responsibility shouldn’t be like an unfunded mandate. Inaction due to lack of time is also a recipe for loss of patent rights. And yet, bandwidth concerns should, in theory, be temporary ones. In the long term, other considerations should take precedence. A company should eventually address bandwidth limitations through hiring or other organizational changes to allow the best-situated person or department the time and resources to meaningfully execute the company’s goals around patenting.
Individual temperament can be a significant factor. For example, an individual with a strong anti-patent bias may not be the ideal choice to lead a program intended to obtain the maximum number of patents. More generally, some people may not understand patents or legal issues well. This is often an is/ought problem. Some people act based on how they think the legal system—and patent examination in particular—ought to work, rather than based on how it actually operates. For instance, some engineers struggle with the ambiguities inherent to patent law and legal issues in general, and can get frustrated with legal matters that depart from the sort of scientific and engineering precision they expect elsewhere. As another example, some business people have ideas about legal definitions of what constitutes “prior art” or “obviousness” that are simply contrary to existing law. And on top of all that, some people simply lack the objectivity needed to oversee patent matters effectively.
Having a firewall between supervisors of patent matters and named inventors can be worthwhile. Particularly where bonuses are paid to inventors, conflicts of interest can arise when named inventors oversee their own patent applications. The main issue is that persons supervising patent applications sometimes show more interest in their personal bonuses than company goals. For instance, they may pursue futile or worthless patents or questionably name themself as an inventor simply to personally obtain a patent- or invention disclosure-related bonus. Having a policy in place that prohibits self-supervision of patent matters might be helpful, especially in larger organizations. Though, on the other hand, self-dealing is not always a problem, and in the absence of inventor bonuses this may be a minor concern.
What Is Most Common and Why?
Most commonly, responsibility for patents is assigned to (a) a legal department, (b) an engineering/research & development department, or (c) a patent committee specially formed to handle patent issues. Some combination of these possibilities is also common. In small companies where there are no “departments” as such, having the CEO or other high-level executive take responsibility is typical.
Because patents have a legal character, and often require working with an outside patent attorney specially licensed to practice patent law, it is very common to have an in-house legal department have responsibility. This way you have in-house lawyer(s) talking to outside patent lawyer(s). In-house counsel will understand legal concepts and may already be managing relationships with other outside attorneys. Also, having in-house legal departments involved can help funnel patent-related expenses through existing legal billing and expense tracking systems that the legal department may already be using in other contexts.
Because patents involve inventions with a technical or scientific character, it is also very common to place primary responsibility with an engineering or R&D department. Inventions typically arise out of that department anyway. So it often makes sense to have that department’s personnel closely involved. For similar reasons, engineering/R&D personnel might also have the greatest interest in patents and the technology involved. In this sense they are more likely to see this responsibility as an interesting opportunity rather than an unpleasant chore. Inventors also often take pride in their inventions, so they and their immediate co-workers are usually motivated to see them protected by patents.
Lastly, having some kind of specially-created patent committee involved is another common approach. This committee might have only partial responsibility, such as responsibility for reviewing invention disclosures and determining whether or not to proceed with patenting or to manage patent portfolio maintenance and annuity payments. An advantage of these committees is that they can allow for cross-disciplinary teams that encompass personnel from multiple departments. These committees can be a great way for companies to help keep everyone in alignment. These committees can also help alleviate concerns that an engineering/R&D department will be overly eager to patent everything and anything. Though such committees really only make sense when a company is of a certain size.
Less Common Approaches
Various companies have assigned responsibility for patents to nearly every possible department or person. Not all companies are organized the same, and their resources and ongoing business activities might suggest different approaches. Not every company has an in-house legal department, for instance. Though a common reason for assigning responsibility outside of a legal or engineering/R&D department is simply bandwidth and capacity to take on the responsibility.
Sometimes patents are overseen by finance/accounting. The reasoning sometimes goes that patents are an overhead expense, so finance should keep those in check. Another more subtle reason is that finance often understands revenue sources and therefore might represent a relatively neutral arbiter of what sort of patenting expenses make sense for the business. On the other hand, finance personnel may not grasp the technology involved in patents as well as others, or simply may not have much interest in patents.
Other times marketing or sales oversees patents. This might make sense if a company is heavily involved with trademarks and only occasionally has patentable inventions. Another reason is that some companies see patents as protecting their sales activities—rather than their inventions in the abstract—and so they give sales & marketing say. On the other hand, sales & marketing personnel sometimes have a negative or ambivalent attitude toward patents. That is partly because inventions rarely originate with them. It is just as common, if not more common, for sales & marketing to see patents as taking budget allocations away from their own projects, like advertising campaigns. Lastly, sales & marketing personnel frequently have expectations that are not aligned with actually-existing patents laws. This may take the form of unrealistically expecting a broad legal monopoly without regard for the quid pro quodisclosure of an invention.
The main reason that other departments like finance/accounting, sales & marketing, etc. rarely have responsibility for patenting programs is that these departments tend to be further removed from relevant facts and information. To the extent that there are disputes over who should have a say over patent matters, having a committee that includes personnel from these other departments can be a good compromise that allows for input and shared responsibility without creating awkward disconnects or glaring inefficiencies. For instance, having a committee to approve individual invention disclosures and/or to set high-level patenting goals can be worthwhile when coupled with passing responsibility for day-to-day management of patent applications and granted patents to a specific department or individual.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Novelty and non-obviousness requirements for patentability are assessed based on the contents of the “prior art”. Older patents and publications generally count as prior art. But public uses and on sale activities can count as prior art too. Prior “on sale” and public use activities of others (competitors) generally constitute prior art. Though an inventor’s own activities can potentially be treated as prior art as well. An inventor placing his or her claimed invention on sale prior to filing a patent application may be treated as prior art against that later application, unless a patent filing grace period applies. To account for the 1-year statutory grace period, it is common to say that an “on-sale bar” arises when an invention is commercially exploited by an inventor before a “critical date” that is one year prior to the effective filing date of the relevant claim(s) of the patent application. If an “on-sale bar” applies, it qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) against a given claim, for both novelty and obviousness analyses. Under current U.S. law, the on-sale bar applies to commercial sales activities that happen anywhere in the world—though older (pre-AIA) laws limited it to on-sale activities involving the U.S.
There are some nuances as to what does or does not qualify as placing an invention “on sale”. A two-part test is applied in the U.S. A patent claim is invalid or unpatentable under the on-sale bar if, before the critical date, the invention was both:
the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale; and
This analysis hinges on how an invention is claimed. Depending on what specific subject matter is claimed in a patent or patent application, and how broadly or narrowly it is claimed, the on-sale bar analysis may lead to different conclusions. Also, the on-sale bar is subject to an experimentation exception when an inventor’s own activities are involved.
On-sale bars differ by jurisdiction. Many other countries have an absolute novelty requirement without a patent filing grace period. And some other countries have no on-sale bar at all, or one that applies only to sales in that particular country. It is important to consider the specific law in each individual country where patent protection is sought if sales activities have already taken place. Commercial exploitation of an invention might bar patenting in some countries but not others, depending on the specific circumstances involved.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the on-sale bar is just one among many potential bars to patentability. Public use or printed publication bars, for instance, might arise out an inventor’s or competitor’s activities occurring prior to filing a patent application.
Purpose
The on-sale bar serves a number of purposes. Principally, it avoids an extension of patent protection beyond the statutory term. Modern patent laws are premised on granting only a limited monopoly in a claimed invention in exchange for disclosure of the invention. If an inventor could commercially exploit or profit from an invention and then much later still seek a patent, the expiration of that patent would effectively be extended beyond the intended duration limits. Also, the public notice function around the exclusive rights granted in patents would be frustrated if patent rights could spring up long after an invention became commercially available. The on-sale bar also protects the public’s right to retain knowledge already in the public domain.
When dealing with an inventor’s own actions, this means an inventor has to make a choice between patenting his or her invention or keeping it secret:
“it is a condition upon an inventor’s right to a patent that he shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting; he must content himself with either secrecy, or legal monopoly.”
Inventors are not permitted to have things both ways, or, to have their cake and eat it too. Though, in practical terms, not all inventions lend themselves to secrecy. It may be possible to maintain secrecy over certain manufacturing processes or the identities of certain materials used in a liquid solution—like a proverbial “secret formula”. But it is usually impossible to keep the physical/mechanical configuration of a product secret except by not selling or publicly using it at all. That means patent protection may be the only way to have market exclusivity in certain types of inventions.
U.S. patent laws do, however, provide a one-year grace period for patent filings, unlike many other countries. And an inventor’s own experimental activities are excepted from the on-sale bar. But these are essentially the only exceptions to a general policy requiring that inventors promptly seek patent protection or forfeit rights patent rights by commercializing their inventions.
Another important purpose of the on-sale bar mentioned above is to prevent patents from removing things that are already commercially available from the public domain. While much of the discussion that follows emphasizes inventors’ own activities, which is often the primary question when these issues arise, on-sale bars can apply to commercial activity by anyone. If someone else had already placed something on sale, it usually counts as prior art against a later-filed patent claim (unless the later-filing inventor qualifies for the prior disclosure exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(B)). It does not matter if the person or entity that previously commercialized something chose not to patent it. The on-sale bar is an independent bar to later patenting that does not depend on someone having previously patented or attempted to patent something.
Sales
Commercial sale of an invention before the critical date gives rise to an on-sale bar. Though a sale for experimental purposes is distinguished from a commercial sale and is excluded from the on-sale bar. A commercial sale normally involves transferring property rights (that is, title to the goods) for consideration that the buyer pays or promises to pay the seller for the thing bought or sold. However, in this context, commercially leasing an inventive product is treated as a commercial sale even though title to the goods is not transferred—this includes standard computer software licenses for software-enabled inventions, for example. Even a single commercial sale can give rise to an on-sale bar. It does not matter whether or not the details of the invention are made available to the public through the sale, or that it was a sale subject to buyer approval (that is, in a “sale on approval” where the buyer could potentially return the goods to the seller). Moreover, using an inventive product while providing commercial services triggers the on-sale bar too.
When an invention is for a method or process, a sale of that inventive method or process before the critical date will give rise to an on-sale bar. For example, if an invention is a method of manufacturing something, selling goods manufactured using that inventive process constitutes a sale. Additionally, selling a product that embodies the essential features of an inventive method of use will constitute an on-sale bar for the claimed method of use. However, whether inventive activity pertains to an invention involving a method, an apparatus, or both, may not be apparent until a patent application is prepared—or possibly not until much later when particular claims are allowed or granted.
Merely licensing or assigning rights to an invention does not constitute a sale. Though a commercial sale of an invention by a licensee before the critical date would give rise to an on-sale bar, because the licensee is considered to stand in the shoes of the patentee, and that would include commercial use of a method of making a product by a licensee.
However, an inventor outsourcing manufacturing to validate the manufacturing process for regulatory approval only and stockpiling the invention only for that inventor do not, without more, constitute a sale where the inventor maintains control of the invention. But commercial agreements between a patentee and its supplier or distributor are not exempt from the on-sale bar, such as where title to the goods passes to the distributor or where the manufacturer/supplier is free to market the product or disclose the process for manufacturing the product to others. Also, method or process inventions cannot be stockpiled, and outsourcing the commercial use of an inventive method/process of making something would generally trigger the on-sale bar.
Commercial Offers for Sale
A commercial offer for sale before the critical date, without a sale actually being completed, also establishes an on-sale bar. The U.S. Supreme Court has described commercial offers for sale as occurring when an invention is first marketed commercially. The offer must be commercial rather than experimental in character, just as with completed sales. Also, as with completed sales, a commercial offer for sale of a method/process invention before the critical date give rise to an on-sale bar, though mere licenses and assignments of rights do not.
However, lower courts have effectively read-in a significant limitation on what constitutes a “commercial offer for sale” based on commercial contract law. “Only an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale . . . .” Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Lower courts have pointed to general commercial law for these determinations rather than the law of the particular state where the transaction took place, looking to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for guidance. Though the UCC does not define “offer”. So courts have further looked to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which says, “An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.” (§ 24). The Restatement also says there must be intent to be bound, because “[a] manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain is not an offer if the person to whom it is addressed knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend to conclude a bargain until he has made a further manifestation of assent.” (§ 26). Although no particular language is required to constitute an offer for sale, lower courts have said (citing and extending § 33(3) of the Restatement, which says that leaving proposed term(s) open indicates a non-“offer”) that a communication that fails to include material terms (such as quantities, time of delivery, place of delivery, or product specifications) is not an “offer” in the contract sense. Though a “quote” (sent in response to a request for quotation) has been considered equivalent to a commercial offer for sale when it included essential price, delivery, and payment terms (plus alternative product amounts that reflected multiple distinct offers for sale).
These judicially-created limitations on commercial offers for sale mean that the standard is an ambiguous one based on the involved parties’ subjective intents and understandings, rather than a bright-line one. As long as current lower court interpretations prevail, whether a communication naming a price constitutes a commercial offer for sale or mere preparations for future offers for sale (that alone do not give rise to an on-sale bar) depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. So early sales, marketing, and promotional efforts may or may not trigger the on-sale bar, depending on the circumstances (including whether and how a customer responds to them). A salesperson vaguely discussing the possibility of offering a product in the future without the potential customer actually being able to accept a specific offer on specific terms may not qualify as a “offer for sale” under current lower court case law.
Keep in mind that other types of bars to patentability might apply even if there was no sale or commercial offer for sale. For instance, an advertisement of an invention before the critical date might qualify as a “printed publication” bar instead of (or in addition to) an on-sale bar. And a non-experimental public use of an invention before the critical date would give rise to a public use bar. The on-sale bar is only one among many potential bars to patentability that must be considered.
Secret Sales & Offers for Sale
In the U.S., the on-sale bar still applies to a confidential, private, or otherwise secret commercial sale or offer for sale before the critical date. This means that merely having a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or other contractual confidentiality terms in place will not avoid triggering an on-sale bar. An NDA might still help establish that a sale or offer for sale was primarily experimental rather than commercial, depending on all the other relevant circumstances. And the existence of an NDA may mean that a given use of an invention does not give rise to a public use bar or that the confidential exchange of documents does not constitute a printed publication bar. Moreover, an NDA may make discovery of prior sales by third parties difficult to identify. But any commercial sale or offer for sale of an invention triggers the on-sale bar, regardless of the public versus confidential/secret nature of such commercial exploitation. While having an NDA in place may have certain advantages for the parties involved, it will not avoid an on-sale bar in the U.S. when there has been non-experimental commercial exploitation.
Applicable law in other countries may be different, however. Indeed, countries that lack a distinct on-sale bar might even allow a later inventor to obtain a patent and enforce it against the prior inventor who did not patent or publicly use the invention (because all use was confidential rather than public).
Experimentation Exception
There is an experimental sale exception to the on-sale bar. A sale or offer for sale that is primarily for experimental purposes, as opposed to commercial exploitation, does not raise an on-sale bar. Though the experimental sale exception applies only if the commercial exploitation is merely incidental to the primary purpose of experimentation to perfect the invention.
Only certain activities are considered experimental, depending on the purpose or intent behind them. A use may be “experimental” only if it is designed to: (1) test claimed features of the invention, or (2) determine whether an invention will work for its intended purpose. This judicial definition of what is experimental applies to both the public use bar and the on-sale bar. But experimental use cannot occur after an invention has actually been “reduced to practice”; once an inventor realizes that the invention as later claimed indeed works for its intended purpose, further alleged “experimentation” may constitute a public use and/or on-sale bar. Similarly, a contract characterizing commercial activities as “equipment testing” will be insufficient to establish experimental use if unnecessary, that is, if the testing could have been performed satisfactorily before or without the sale.
Courts have applied the following factors to determine if a sale constitutes experimentation or commercial exploitation, though not all factors will apply in any given situation:
the necessity for public testing,
the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor,
the nature of the invention,
the length of the test period,
whether payment was made,
whether there was a secrecy obligation,
whether records of the experiment were kept,
who conducted the experiment,
the degree of commercial exploitation during testing,
whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use,
whether testing was systematically performed,
whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and
the nature of contacts made with potential customers.
While the experimentation exception to the on-sale bar has long been recognized in the U.S., it is rather difficult for an inventor to qualify for it. Successfully invoking it might even be more rare in the on-sale bar context than in the public use context. So think of it almost like a unicorn defense against invalidity. And when a patent is enforced, any reliance on this experimentation exception by the patentee is certain to be challenged by the accused infringer. Therefore, it may be advisable in many situations to avoid relying on it (other than as a backup plan or “plan B” fallback position). A better strategy is to file a patent application before accepting or seeking any payment for an invention, or at least to file within one year of any payment, request for payment, or any other activities that could potentially be seen as exploiting or seeking to profit from an invention.
All this makes sense if we turn back to the basic purposes of the on-sale bar. The experimentation exception arises because the inventor is not really extending the expiration of patent rights when he or she is not yet certain that the invention is viable or complete. A key reason the experimentation exception against the on-sale bar is so rarely established is that inventors normally don’t try to sell inventions that they know are not yet in working order. When they have sold or offered to sell things, that tends to give rise to an inference that the inventor really did believe the invention was sufficiently workable for the buyer’s purposes (despite after-the-fact inventor denials that often come across as self-serving). If anything, the exception is more likely to apply where the only reasonable experimental testing involves using the invention in connection with commercial services under close supervision—as in the famous case City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 (1878) where the inventor garnered more sympathy than most.
“Ready for Patenting”
An invention is “ready for patenting” when, prior to the critical date, the invention is either: (1) reduced to practice; or (2) depicted in drawings or described in writings of sufficient nature to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
Reduction to practice means being embodied in a distinct form, like through construction of a working prototype. Reduction to practice happens when occurs when the inventor/seller had possession of the claimed subject matter and that it was shown or known to work for its intended purpose. For something to qualify as a reduction to practice, it must show that the invention works for its intended purpose beyond a probability of failure but that need not be established beyond a possibility of failure. Importantly, reduction to practice does not require that the invention, when tested, be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development—for utility patents this analysis is from the standpoint of technical feasibility rather than marketability or saleable appearances. It does not, however, require that the seller recognize that his or her on-sale invention possesses specific later-claimed characteristics when there was no question that the invention was useful at the time it was placed on sale.
Whether or not an enabling disclosure has been documented (in the absence of actual reduction to practice) is generally assessed in the same way as for priority claims. In any event, any time there are engineering specifications available that are sufficient for use to manufacture an invention, or to allow a customer to know specifically what is being purchased, the invention will usually be considered ready for patenting.
Difficult questions arise when advance development agreements or pre-availability contracts are involved. In some situations, a contract may be signed for a seller to deliver to a customer at a later date something not yet invented. In other words, the customer understands that goods meeting certain requirements do not yet exist but believes that the seller will be able to devise one or more inventions that will make delivery of suitable goods possible in the future. This is a situation where the customer does not know upfront exactly how those goods will be configured. But certain general requirements, goals, or objectives that the goods be better, faster, lighter, etc. would likely be set forth in such an advance contract. When does the on-sale bar arise in these situations? The answer is it depends when the invention was conceived subsequent to the signing of the contract. For purposes of the on-sale bar, it is initially viewed as an open offer to sell an idea for a product (or service) that is converted into a “commercial offer for sale” at whatever time the relevant invention is later conceived:
“[A]n invention cannot be offered for sale until its conception date. Hence, if an offer for sale is made and retracted prior to conception, there has been no offer for sale of the invention. In contrast, if an offer for sale is extended and remains open, a subsequent conception will cause it to become an offer for sale of the invention as of the conception date. In such a case, the seller is offering to sell the invention once he has conceived of it. Before that time, he was merely offering to sell an idea for a product.”
When, exactly, conception happens may very well be disputed. But once there are drawings that might enable the invention to be made and used, or it is actually reduced to practice (even if the inventive aspect is not yet appreciated or recognized), an on-sale bar can arise.
Joint research & development agreements potentially raise further limits on application of the on-sale bar where they do not bear commercial fruit and are cloaked in confidentiality. That is to say that research & development activities, even where conducted jointly, may pertain only to the process of invention or related experimentation rather than to commercial activities. But, as always, this will depend on the specific circumstances involved, including what the applicable contract(s) say. There is not always a bright line separating research & development and on-sale activities when joint efforts are involved.
Anytime there is already a contract or commercial proposal of an idea for a product (or process), the inventor must diligently pursue a patent filing after something inventive is actually conceived to ensure that filing occurs within the one-year U.S. grace period. Though keep in mind that the ways these issues are treated in other countries may differ.
Best Practices and Words of Caution
Assessments of potential on-sale bars must be approached with caution. The treatment of potential on-sale bar activities is governed by somewhat subjective and imprecise standards in the USA. The consequences of incorrectly relying on an experimental sale exception to the on-sale bar can be severe for both the patentee and the patentee’s legal counsel. For instance, if a court later rejects an inventor’s determination that a pre-critical date sale was experimental, an entire patent might be found unenforceable in addition to specific claims being found invalid—if information about the on-sale bar was withheld from the USPTO with deceptive intent (which can be inferred). Moreover, because on-sale bar activities apply to obviousness analyses too, commercialization of an earlier version of a product or process before the critical date potentially be relevant to the obviousness of a later-developed variation or improvement.
The best strategy to avoid an on-sale bar worldwide is to file a patent application before any activities that could potentially be seen (in the light least favorable to the patentee) as exploiting or attempting to profit from an invention, or, at least in the USA, to file within one year of any such activities. But if there has already potentiallybeen definite commercial sales activity before the critical date, or anything that might potentially be viewed as the commercial exploitation of an invention before the critical date, consider explicitly disclosing it to the USPTO in order to satisfy the duty of disclosure. This is because court rulings about experimental sales will happen only many years later and may be driven by sympathies and impressions given by witnesses at least as much as the “cold” factual record. And there are risks of self-serving biases when inventors make these determinations themselves.
In order to make a legal determination about whether or not an on-sale bar applies, there must first be a sufficient investigation of the relevant facts. It would be nice if the legal standards for on-sale bars allowed for a straightforward and uncomplicated assessment. But the reality is that these are complicated, nuanced legal determinations that depend on a variety of specific facts that will differ from one situation to the next. If important relevant facts are unknown, overlooked, or even concealed, then it may be impossible to reliably determine whether an on-sale bar applies in a given situation. So, beyond the lack of bright-line legal standards as to certain aspects, the dependency of these legal analyses on underlying fact gathering is yet another reason caution is merited.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
Obtaining rights in an invention require affirmatively filing a patent application. There is a limited one-year grace period in the U.S. to file a patent application after the invention has been disclosed or commercialized before patent rights are lost. In the context of an inventor’s own prior activities, the term “critical date” refers to the beginning of the grace period one year before the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention. Understanding this grace period is important in order to know when patenting becomes barred, or may have already been barred, due to an inventor’s own prior actions.
The U.S. patent laws generally bar patenting if “the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” or if “the claimed invention was described in a patent . . . or in an application for patent published or deemed published . . . [that] names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)). In other words, disclosures and commercial exploitation of an invention prior to the critical date qualify as “prior art” that can be held against a later-filed patent or patent application. Such prior art is used to evaluate the patentability (or validity) of a claimed invention.
Illustration of Timeline for U.S. Patent Filing Grace Period
However, there is a one-year grace period for filing a patent application following a disclosure or commercialization of the invention by an inventor (or someone who obtained that subject matter from an inventor). This grace period is formally stated as follows:
(b) Exceptions.-
(1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.- A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if-
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor
***
(2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.-A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if-
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
*** or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. [see also § 102(c) regarding inventions under joint research agreements that may satisfy this provision]
So if an inventor has publicly disclosed an invention or placed it on sale, the clock has begun on the one-year deadline to file a patent application. Under current U.S. law, disclosures and on-sale activities happening anywhere in the world trigger the grace period filing deadline. But disclosure of an invention more than one year earlier represents a complete bar to patentability. The grace period is not extendable.
This 1-year grace period is somewhat unique to U.S. patent law. Most other countries have what is called an absolute novelty requirement. That means a patent application must be filed before there is any disclosure of the invention. Though the specific things that do or do not count as a prior disclosure vary somewhat by country (for instance, sometimes the country in which the disclosure was made matters, and sometimes secret sales are not considered public disclosures). What this means is that even though the U.S. has a patent filing grace period, the applicant needs to consider the most restrictive patenting requirements among all relevant jurisdictions. If it is desired to pursue foreign patent protection, or even just to preserve the possibility of foreign filings, then it is important to file a patent application before any disclosure or sales activity to ensure that patent rights are preserved for all foreign countries.
Another aspect of this grace period is the exception set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(B), which says a disclosure falling within the grace period does not qualify as prior art (under § 102(a)(1)) if “the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.” In other words, a disclosure by someone other than the applicant (occurring one year or less before the effective filing date) can potentially be defeated and removed from the realm of “prior art” if the inventor or applicant had previously publicly disclosed the claimed invention (one year or less before the effective filing date). So, in very limited situations, a prior public disclosure within the statutory grace period can also potentially aid a patent applicant against competitors trying to patent or commercialize the invention.
In general, the initial filing of a patent application to preserve U.S. patent rights and stop the clock on the 1-year grace period encompasses both U.S. and foreign applications. The “effective filing date” (as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)) is the earlier of the filing date of a given U.S. patent application or, if there is a qualifying foreign priority or domestic benefit claim to earlier application(s), the filing date of such an earlier U.S., PCT international, or foreign application that disclosed the claimed invention. Where this can become complicated is that there may be multiple prior applications but the effective filing date is assessed on a claim-by-claim basis. The effective filing date is not necessarily the earliest prior application if the relevant “claimed invention” (as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 100(j)) was not yet disclosed in it.
Austen Zuege is an attorney at law and registered U.S. patent attorney in Minneapolis whose practice encompasses patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain name cybersquatting, IP agreements and licensing, freedom-to-operate studies, client counseling, and IP litigation. If you have patent, trademark, or other IP issues, he can help.
