• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Lessons / Core Concept 5: Three Bars to Patentability and the First-Inventor-to-File Regime (Chapter 5)

Core Concept 5: Three Bars to Patentability and the First-Inventor-to-File Regime (Chapter 5)

April 11, 2018 by James Yang

Back to: Navigating the Patent System

Inventors may want to market their invention first and file the patent application later to save money on legal fees. This plan, however, is problematic. If, for example, a third party files a patent application before the inventor or publicly markets the same product, the inventor would be prevented from being able to secure a patent at all. Moreover, it is possible that the inventor would discover this much later after having invested a substantial sum of time and money, which would go to waste because the third party would be awarded the patent, not you.

There are three bars to patentability: public use, printed publication, and offer for sale (see Figure 2 below). Bars to patentability specify the conditions under which the one-year time period begins before the inventor must file a patent application or be barred from seeking patent protection forever. These conditions are often associated with the marketing efforts of the product.

One-year personal grace period

Before I explain each of the bars to patentability in detail, it is important to understand why I call the “one-year grace period” the “one-year personal grace period.” U.S. patent laws permit inventors to publicly use, offer for sale, and distribute a printed publication of their invention for one year before the inventor must file the patent application. The inventor does not need to file a patent application before marketing the product, but may legally wait up to one year after the start of marketing efforts before filing the patent application. If an application is not filed within one year of starting marketing efforts, the inventor is barred forever from seeking patent protection.

Taking advantage of the one-year grace period is not recommended. Although nothing the inventor does personally during that one-year period will bar the inventor from seeking a patent on the invention, the same is not true for the actions of a third party. If a third party gives a public demonstration, makes an offer for sale, distributes a printed publication, or files a patent application related to the invention before the inventor files his or her own patent application with the USPTO, the third party’s actions would be considered prior art and may invalidate the inventor’s patent, as will be discussed below in the section entitled “First-Inventor-to-File Regime.” This is true even if the third party saw the inventor’s invention and copied it. The inventor may have recourse against the third-party, but such recourse would require an expenditure of time and money. The unpredictable nature of litigation and related costs would make seeking such redress economically infeasible. Hence, the one-year grace period should be treated as being solely personal to the inventor and not necessarily beneficial for the inventor because the one-year grace period does not protect you against the actions of a third party.

Figure 2 Bars to Patentability

The Three Bars to Patentability: Public use, printed publication, and offer for sale

Public Use

“Public use” includes any use of the invention where the public has access to such use. Non-public uses may be considered public use even if no one is around to see the product being used. For example, the use of an invention by a person who is not under any limitation, restriction, or obligation of secrecy to the inventor would be considered a public use even if the use was behind closed doors.

For example, in the case, New Railhead Manufacturing LLC v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.,7 New Railhead, the patent owner, sued Vermeer for patent infringement of a drill bit and a method of using the bit to drill rock formations. As part of the proceedings, the court considered the types of uses that New Railhead (the patent owner) had engaged in more than one year before the filing of its patent application that could have been considered public use. The court considered New Railhead’s drill bit and method of using the bit to drill rock formations to be in public use even though it was used underground and out of plain sight, and they lost the case. The result of this case means that even if an invention is used where it cannot be seen by others (i.e., not openly in public), the invention may still be considered in public use. Inventors should bear in mind that even if an invention’s use is not visible to the public, it could still be considered public.

The “experimental use” exception is an exception to the public use bar. It applies when the invention is still being tested and the use of the invention in public may be necessary to properly test its functionality. However, once proof of concept has been established through testing, experimentation should stop. Otherwise, any continued use may cease to qualify as “experimental use” and constitute public use, which would bar the inventor from securing the patent if the public use occurred for more than one year before the filing of the patent application. Even if an inventor is using the invention for experimental purposes, he or she should still submit a patent application within one year of starting any public use because it is difficult to know when the exception no longer applies. By filing within one year of the start of use (even experimental), the inventor may avoid potential attacks on the validity of the patent based on whether a use is public or experimental.

Printed Publication

A “printed publication” is a physical or electronic document that is indexed, cataloged, and shelved so that it is publicly accessible. In other words, it is any information that is printed on a piece of paper or stored electronically, available to the public, and categorized so that one of ordinary skill could locate such information if interested. Websites, brochures, and flyers are some examples of printed publications. In the past, most legal disputes over whether a document is a printed publication involved thesis papers stored in university libraries. A thesis paper would be considered a printed publication if it was cataloged by subject matter in a way that the public could access it. Currently, most issues related to whether a document is a printed publication involve online publications, such as online forums. The same general standard discussed above applies.

Offer for Sale

An “offer for sale” is an offer from an inventor to another person or entity to purchase a product embodying the invention. Even if the potential buyer does not accept the offer, it still qualifies as an offer for sale.

The following is counterintuitive. Even if an offer is not from an inventor to another person or entity, it may nonetheless be considered an offer for sale. For example, once the invention has moved out of the experimentation stage, the inventor may outsource its manufacturing and place an order for a production run. The contract from the third-party manufacturing vendor to the inventor may be considered an offer for sale.

In highly contested litigation, the dates on such purchase orders may be determinative as to whether a patent is valid or invalid. In Hamilton v. Sunbeam,8 the patent owner (Hamilton) sued the accused infringer (Sunbeam) for patent infringement of its slow cooker. It was discovered that Hamilton had issued a purchase order to its manufacturing vendor to build its slow cooker more than one year before Hamilton had submitted a patent application. In response to the purchase order, the manufacturing vendor indicated that it was ready to start the manufacturing process and therefore ready to sell the units to the patent holder (i.e., Hamilton). For the court, this constituted an offer of sale and Hamilton lost the case to Sunbeam because Hamilton did not file a patent application less than one year before the offer for sale date (i.e., the date of the purchase order from the manufacturer).

Hamilton was not commercializing the invention in the normal sense of making a profit from consumers. However, because Hamilton had ordered units to sell them to the general public, and the manufacturing vendor was ready to sell the units to the patentee, the courts characterized the contract from the manufacturing vendor to the inventor as an offer to sell. The court ruled that this triggered the one-year period in which the inventor needed to file the corresponding patent application. Hamilton lost because the patent application for the slow cooker was filed over a year after ordering units from the manufacturer for sale.

Therefore, it is important to keep track of any “offers of sale” including the dates of manufacturing contracts for the invention and to file a patent application within one year of any such transaction to avoid this bar of patentability.

Side Note: Another risk of using the one-year personal grace period is the potential waiver of foreign patent protection or loss of ability to seek a patent in foreign countries. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, many foreign countries require what is known as “absolute novelty,” which requires the inventor to initiate marketing efforts after filing the patent application. The United States is a “relative novelty” country because U.S. patent laws allow for public disclosure of the invention through marketing efforts for a limited, one-year period before the patent application must be filed.

First-inventor-to-file regime

The “first-inventor-to-file regime” dictates that the first inventor to file a patent application with the USPTO is awarded the patent regardless of who was the first to invent or conceive of the invention. The rules of the first-inventor-to-file regime (FITF) must be understood in conjunction with the one-year personal grace period because the FITF rules greatly reduce any benefit of using the one-year personal grace period.

The one-year personal grace period does not protect you against a third party that files a patent application on the same or similar idea as your invention. Under the FITF rules, they would be awarded the patent, not you. This was not the case under the prior first-to-invent regime.

Third parties can also interfere with the original inventor’s ability to secure a patent by engaging in marketing efforts before the original inventor has submitted a patent application (see Figure 2). This is true even if the third party’s activities are based on the inventor’s information. Any public use, offer for sale, or printed publication by a third party that occurs prior to the filing of the original inventor’s patent application is considered prior art and bars the original inventor from securing a patent. A third party’s marketing effort that occurs during the original inventor’s one-year grace period before the inventor files a patent application can therefore bar the original inventor from patenting his or her invention.

An inventor risks third-party interference if he or she markets an invention during the one-year grace period before filing the patent application. The third party may observe the inventor’s marketing efforts and file their own patent application first. The first-inventor-to-file regime does not take into consideration the date of an inventor’s conception. Instead, the USPTO only considers the filing dates of the patent applications when issuing a patent. Although there may be some recourse against a third party that submits a patent application on another inventor’s product, such recourse may be expensive to prove and the outcome unpredictable. Therefore, most inventors do not seek such recourse and instead would most likely quit marketing and selling their product to avoid patent infringement liability.

Continuing any marketing or selling of one’s product after a third party has submitted a patent application risks infringing on the patent rights of the first-to-file inventor if, and when, the patent application matures into a patent. The inventor may believe he or she is protected by a marketing date (e.g., public use, offer for sale, or printed publication) that falls prior to the filing date of the third-party’s patent application and that the inventor’s marketing would invalidate the third-party’s patent. However, in practice, patent litigation would not occur until many years later and the inventor would have to prove that his or her marketing efforts constitute prior art that invalidates the third party’s patent. This may seem relatively easy, but over the course of years memories fade, documents are lost, and the ability of the inventor to provide prior use evidence may be difficult or impossible. The bottom line is that the original inventor has to deal with an issued patent owned by a third party. Any litigation based on the third-party’s patent must still be addressed and will cost time and money.

One form of recourse is a derivation proceeding in which the inventor must prove that the third-party inventor (i.e., first to file inventor) derived their patented invention from the “first” inventor. If successful, the “first” inventor is awarded the patent instead of the third party that filed first. However, a stringent reading of the law appears to require the “first” inventor to prove there was a chain of communication with the third party by which the third party derived the invention from the original inventor. This chain of communication is difficult to prove, especially when sufficient documentation of marketing efforts may be lacking.

Footnotes:

7  New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. CO., 298 F.3d 1290 (2002).

8  Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 726 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Previous Lesson
Core Concept 4: Different Ways to Protect an Idea (Chapter 4)
Next Lesson
Core Concept 6: Preserving Foreign Patent Protection (Chapter 6)

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
    • Disclaimer
    • What you will find in this course
    • How to use this course
  • To Patent or Not To Patent (Section 1)
    • Purpose of the patent system
    • Benefits to the patent owner
    • Overview of the Seven Core Concepts
  • Getting Started: Seven Core Patent Concepts
    • Core Concept 1: Defining the Invention (Chapter 1)
    • Core Concept 2: Ownership–Resolving Ownership Issues (Chapter 2)
    • Core Concept 3: Conducting a Novelty Search (Chapter 3)
    • Core Concept 4: Different Ways to Protect an Idea (Chapter 4)
    • Core Concept 5: Three Bars to Patentability and the First-Inventor-to-File Regime (Chapter 5)
    • Core Concept 6: Preserving Foreign Patent Protection (Chapter 6)
    • Core Concept 7: The Overall Patent Process and Costs (Chapter 7)
  • Utility and Design Patent Applications (Section 2)
    • How to use this section on patent applications
    • Deciding what application to file: Design or utility?
    • Design Applications (Chapter 8)
    • Cost Considerations for Provisional and Nonprovisional Utility Patent Applications (Chapter 9)
    • Overarching Principles of a Utility Patent Application (Chapter 10)
    • Parts of a Utility Patent Application (Chapter 11)
    • Claims section
    • Writing Tip #1: How to write an application with the broadest possible protection (without breaking the bank) (Chapter 12)
    • Writing Tip #2: Be explicit. Don’t rely on inferences made in the patent application
    • Writing Tip #3: Using the word “may” versus “is”
    • Writing Tip #4: Preferred embodiments and using the word “substantial”
    • Writing Tip #5: Do not use the word, “invention” 
    • Writing Tip #6: Suboptimal embodiments
    • Writing Tip #7: Ranges
    • Writing Tip #8: Software Inventions
  • Patent Examination FAQs (Section 3)
    • FAQ #1: Patent Process Timing
    • FAQs #2-3: Patent Costs
    • FAQ #4: Duty to search v. Duty to disclose
    • FAQ #5: Review of Formalities
    • FAQs #6-7: Secrecy
    • FAQs #8-9: Nonpublication request and foreign patent protection
    • FAQs #10-16: Restriction Requirement
    • FAQs #17-21: Responding to Office Action rejections
    • FAQs #22-29: Broadening patent protection
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Trademark
    • Appendix B: Sample Utility Patent  
    • Appendix C: Sample Design Patent
    • Appendix D: Sample Trademark Registration
    • Appendix E: Entity Size 
    • Appendix F: Patent Laws

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney