Patents priority date

Priority date January 05, 1990(0 February 28, 1990(2) March 12, 1992 (and those of prior deriving patents 1)) July 5, 1994 (and that of prior deriving patent)2)) June 11, 1992 June 11, 1992 (and that of prior deriving patent121) June 16, 1993... 

Ishikawa T, Harada Y, Hayashi H, Kajii S (2003) US Patent 6,541,416 B2 (Foreign Application Priority Date June 13,2000)... 

Another important item for a patent is the priority date. The priority date is established when a patent application is filed for the first time. If the invention is known before this date, then the patent is not granted. Most countries are first-to-file countries, which means that the patent is awarded to the person with the earliest filing date. In the United States, patents are awarded to the first person to invent. The inventor can attempt to show the invention was made before another person s filing date to claim priority. 

A priority dates is the earliest filing date to which the patent is entitled. 

The procedure for obtaining a patent is typically started by filing a national patent application in a patent office of a country which is party to the Paris Convention (an international treaty agreeing certain reciprocal patent rights). This application can provide a so-called priority date for the invention disclosed in this priority application such that the patentability of the invention is assessed as of that date. This priority date can given to further patent applications filed in other Paris Convention territories provided that these further patent applications are filed within 12 months of the first priority application. A patent application must be filed before any public disclosure of the invention since, in most territories, public disclosures before the priority date can be used to attack the novelty and non-obviousness of an invention described in a patent application. 

A. Bianconi "High Tc superconductors made by metal heterostuctures at the atomic limit" European Patent N. 0733271 (priority date 07 12 1993). 

The use of patent term in this context does not imply that there is 20 or 21 years of enforceable patent life with some limited exceptions, a patent is usually issued before it is enforced against infringers. If one considers that patent prosecution can easily take a few years before any claim issues from the filed patent application, than the enforceable patent life can be markedly shorter than the 20-year patent term. In the context used in this chapter, the patent term refers to the period from the filing date of the earliest patent application relied on for its priority date in the chain (the first-filed provisional patent application in this instant). 

Let s start with the most recently filed patent application and then work backward. For compound D, there was no provisional patent application that was filed containing its structure. Rather, the compound made its first appearance in the nonprovisional patent application therefore, it properly claims priority to a filing date of July 29, 2009. The third (last) provisional application that was filed contained compound C only, and it was filed on April 15, 2009, so compound C s effective priority date is April 15,2009. The second provisional application that was filed contained compound B only, and it was filed on December 29, 2008, so compound B s effective priority date is December 29, 2008. 

One way to avoid the scenario just outlined for compound A, where effectively a whole year of priority filing for that compound has been lost, is to include the contents of each provisional patent application in the next provisional application. If that had been done in this example, the provisional application containing compound B that was filed on December 29, 2008, would also contain the subject matter from the earlier provisional application containing the compound A. This way, if for some reason the 1 year time frame was missed as in the example, the priority date for compound A would be December 29, 2008, rather than pushed all the way forward to July 29, 2009. This may not seem like much, but in a highly competitive area it can sometimes mean a lot.19... 

In Chapter 2 we learned that the filing of a U.S. patent application serves as a constructive reduction to practice as of the date that the application is filed. However, we also learned that the patent application as filed needed to satisfy the requirements of 112 f 1. Similarly we learned that an applicant is awarded a priority date as of their date of filing the patent application, but this assumes that the filed patent application satisfies the requirements of 112 f 1 as well. This means that the value of the patent application to the patentee is largely premised on the ability of the patentee to fulfill the requirements of 112 f 1. 

As a drafting matter, each application in the chain must properly claim priority to each of the patent applications in the chain. You have probably seen claims to priority in patent applications and/or on the cover sheet to the patent application or patent. The claim to priority lists die applications in the chain and their relationship one to die other. The process can also be thought of as something akin to a relay race in which the baton must be properly handed from one runner to die next runner. To properly claim priority to one or more earlier filed patent applications, the later filed patent application must cite the patent application or patent applications that are being claimed for priority date purposes. Moreover, each... 

For the examples illustrated in Figures 9.2 and 9.3, both sets of claims were supported in the original application as tiled, but the claims that issued in each patent described a different genus of compounds, and moreover, they issued in different patents on dates separated by more than 4 years. Despite this fact, both sets of claims were supported by the original disclosure, and consequently, the priority date for... 

In Chapter 2 we briefly discussed the possibility of claiming a priority date from an earlier filed patent application provided, among other things, that the earlier filed patent application met the requirements of 112, including providing the best mode of practicing the claimed invention. 

Those Members that did not provide patent protection for pharmaceutical products when the wto was bom were allowed until 1 January 2005 to implement it. However, under Article 70.8 of trips, these countries still had to establish a mailbox for filing foreign patent applications that would preserve the priority dates of any pharmaceutical... 

As should be common practice when working in a competitive field, we maintained a watch worldwide for relevant third-party patents and patent applications as they were published. In Europe and most other countries, patent applications are published 18 months from the earliest priority date. In the United States, at that time, patents were not published until grant (the law has recently changed7), but grant can often occur earlier in the United States than in other major countries. That was the... 

Johnson et al. had attempted to cover the Schering reduction process in a later patent filing9 having a priority date of November 17, 1992. But they were too late. Schering had beaten them with a priority date of September 18,1992. Thus the speed with which Dr Tann and his group phased in the methyl formyl phenylacetate approach provided Schering with the lowest-cost technology and a vital patent position. 

The examiner had a sense of humor. He allowed my response but suggested that a patent could be granted only if we could chemically identify the HABI dimer. At that time, this could be done only by X-ray crystallography, which was a long and tedious job. However, we were pleased with his response as we had a priority date and could delay the ultimate issue for a considerable length of time. As it turned out, this application, filed in the early 1960s, became a patent (L. A. Cescon, U.S. Pat. 3,784,557, Jan. 8, 1974) in 1974, 5 years after products based on this chemistry hit the market. It had issued many years earlier as Belg. Pat. 635,804 (see above). 

The filing of an application establishes a priority date and others wanting to invalidate the patent must be before that date to establish a prior invention. A continuation application has the same priority date as the originally filed parent application (see Fig. 1). 

On filing the patent application a priority date is obtained. This date will be cited in all future references to the filing, for instance when conflicting applications appear from competitors, not only in the country of initial application but elsewhere. 

There is a time period of twelve months between the initial filing of the application, the priority date, and when the request for examination, either preliminary or substantive, needs to be made to the Patent Office. It is during this period that the work necessary for the filing of the complete patent specification is done by R D. The work will involve carrying out the further experimental work that will be used to exemplify the claims within the patent application. A considerable amount of work must be done if the patent is to be a strong one. The R D Manager will need to ensure that sufficient experimental support effort is available to perform this exemplification work. The need to supply this effort is all too easily forgotten in the rush to get on with the product development work until, suddenly, there is insufficient effort or time available for the work to be done in a satisfactory manner. 

The publication of the patent occurs automatically at the end of an 18-month period following the date of fifing or priority application. It is important to remember that this publication now constitutes prior art. If the publication would interfere with more important patent applications, or is incomplete it is possible to abandon prior to publication with a consequent loss of the priority date. 

The "Doctrine of Equivalents" applies to the interpretation of claims to establish infringement of existing patent rights in those cases where there is no literal infringement. Anything that comes under the definition of equivalents would have been patentable at the priority date (and should be included in the claims). Thus the Doctrine cannot be used as an argument to negotiate broader claims for a patent at the time of application or prosecution (Kushan, 1992). 

International (PCT), European (EP) and most other national patent applications are published 18 months after the priority date. PCT and EP applications are published along with the search report. (If a search report is not available at that time, it will be published separately.) This publication offers third parties the possibility of inspecting the file upon request and to inform the patent offices about their related observations. These must be considered by the patent office and will be transmitted to the applicant. 

A patent application is assigned a priority date for the art disclosed in the application. Any aspect of the patent application which was known to the public before the priority date cannot be claimed as an invention. From the priority date onwards the knowledge contained in a patent application must be considered as prior art and excludes others from any attempt to patent the same subject matter. In general the first filing of a patent application establishes the priority. Referring back to the initial priority date, further applications in other countries can be made within a period of usually 12 months. Applications first filed in the European Patent Office or in individual PCT member states can also be used to claim a priority date for a PCT application. 

Although the same basic rules on the priority apply to USA patent applications, two special provisions of the US patent laws should be mentioned which have some influence on the effective priority date of an invention. 

Until a US patent is issued, a "Continuation-in-Part"(CIP) may be filed by the applicant. The same or a similar invention is refiled with new information which may enable the inventor to change or extend the patent claims and to better define the subject matter and its use. If the CIP is based on the same invention and not on later art than the original application, the priority date of the first application may be maintained. To retain the priority is, in fact, the intention of most CIP applications. New patent claims which are based upon information added in the CIP ("new matter") will get a separate, later priority. 

A second exception in the USA which influences the effective priority date of an invention (but not the official priority of the patent ) is the so-called swearing-back according to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37 (37 CFR, 1.131). If there is an interference with other patents or patent applications, the US patent authority will ask the applicant of USA-derived inventions to provide detailed information on the actual time of conception of the invention, reduction to practice and on all further steps which finally led to the current application. Proof of those activities can be provided by laboratory notebooks and other relevant documents, e.g. those which prove the involvement of a patent attorney during the process of drafting and filing the application in question. This information will be considered in order to assess the effective time when the invention was made and when it was reduced to practice in order to fulfil the requirements for patentability. 

This "Rule 131" only applies to inventions made and reduced to practise in the USA. Applicants from abroad have a clear disadvantage because they can only claim the official priority date in cases of conflicts in the USA. This, along with the long time lag until a US patent is finally published, urges applicants from abroad to file patent applications in the USA as early as possible, probably exploiting the possibilities of a Continuation-in-Part later on. 

Any serious research effort directed towards achieving a commercial reward and patent protection needs assistance from adequate information services. Besides the scientific literature, related patents and patent applications must be available and can be traced through patent data bases and patent libraries. Computerized patent data bases (Table 10) usually contain all front page information of a patent or patent application, such as patent number, applicant, inventor, filing and priority date, title of the invention and the abstract, in some cases also the patent claims. Full copies of selected patents can be ordered from national patent libraries or from the patent office. 

---