Priority of invention

In the United States priority of invention rather than early filing of an application for a patent entitles one to a patent. When several inventors claim coincident matter before the Patent Office, an administrative proceeding called an interference is used to determine priority. The inventor last to file his application must present corroborated proof of prior invention to overcome the priority presumption favoring the party who filed first. To build a strong priority position, one must first complete the invention as soon as possible and determine to the satisfaction of those skilled in the pertinent field, usually by testing, that it possesses the utility contemplated by the inventor. Second, the inventor should keep adequate records and develop corroborators who can testify to his activity. 

In the United States priority of invention is important because the first inventor rather than the inventor first to file a patent application is entitled to award of a patent. An interference is a proceeding initiated hv the Patent Office to determine which of two or more parties claiming the same or overlapping subject matter was first inventor and therefore entitled to an award of priority and issuance of a patent on the common matter. 

H. Robson We have no particular comment except that priority of invention is determined by patents rather than publication in journals. 

The U.S. patent system differs in a number of ways from many other national patent systems. Some of these differences are discussed above, including patentable subject matter, priority of invention, and absolute novelty. 

Barlow r. Quare), and decided in favor of Quare (1676). Priority of invention belonged, however, to Barlow, who employed two juns to strike the liours and quarters, while Quare afterward effected this with one only. 

Diagonal or vertical lines should fill in blank pages or half-pages between entries. Later, therefore, no one can undetectably add to the existing record in a fraudulent attempt to establish priority of invention. 

At issue was the priority of invention of crystalline polypropylene, a plastic with considerable commercial utility and value . 

Hercules was eliminated from the interference in 1964 by the US Patent Office because of their late discovery and patent application date. Finally (it seemed), on 29 November 1971, the board finally awarded priority of invention to the senior party, Natta et al., and US Patent No. 3,715,344 was issued to Montedison on 6 February 1973. The defeated parties then appealed the decision with a Civil Action (US District Court of the District of Delaware, Civil Action 4319). In these 1980 hearings, it was concluded that Phillips was entitled to an invention date of no later than 27 January 1953. The district court also determined that Phillips had proved that Montedison had fraudulently withheld information from Patent Office examiners, and that this fraud was detrimental to Phillips case for priority of invention in the Patent Office . However, because of the conclusion that Phillips is entitied to priority on the basis of its constructive reduction to practice, the issue of Montedison s fraud would have no effect on Phiffips entitlement to priority. Therefore, the court found ffiat the crystalline polypropylene of the interference count was useful, novel, and non-obvious and therefore patentable to Phillips and... 

From time to time, different persons invent the same subject matter and intend to protect it by patent rights. In these cases, two or more patent applications are filed by the inventors claiming substantially the same invention. Most countries in the world apply the first-to-file principle to determine who is entitled to the patent. In contrast, the United States do not give priority in case of conflict to the first applicant, but to the first to invent. Interference proceedings are instituted to determine who is the first inventor and consequently entitled to the patent (see 35 U.S.C. 102 g (1)). The parties involved in such a proceeding may provide evidence of facts to prove their date of invention. 

Although at least five other pharmaceutical companies claimed priority of the invention (Merck, Squibb, Pfizer, Upjohn and Syntex), none was able to convince the U.S. Patent Office. A patent was finally issued to Schering Corp. in 1964 (10 years after the initial filing). To this day, prednisone and prednisolone remain the standard of systemic corticosteroid therapy throughout the world. 

A disadvantage of joint invention which commonly arises is the failure of corroboration in a later interference. Many times joint inventors are the only ones who have observed the work which led to the invention, but these people cannot be used to corroborate the fact of invention to show priority because they are interested parties. 

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. 

Free to neither patent nor practice. Inventions of this type are those that are fuUy disclosed in the specification of a prior patent and fall within the scope of the claims of that patent. The discovery of two patents, two patent applications, or a patent and an application claiming the same invention can lead to an interference, a procedure that determines which of the two competing parties has priority over the other, usually in terms of the date of invention, and awards the patent to the prevailing party. 

During the interference, parties can rely on inventive activities occurring in the United States and, with certain limitations, a North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA)country or a World Trade Organization (WTO) country to prove a date of invention before the actual filingdate (146). The parties cannot rely on inventive activities within non-NAFTA or non-WTO countries to establish a date of invention in such cases the parties will be limited to their foreign priority date as the date of invention. Thus, in an in-... 

An invention is novel if it was not part of the prior art before the priority date vide infra) of the patent application that claims the invention. The prior art comprises all oral or written information publicly available before the priority date of the application (in some countries the prior art must be publicly available in those countries). This criterion is essentially absolute everywhere except in the USA, where there is a grace period of 1 year, within which one can file a patent application even if the invention has been earlier divulged, either by the applicant or by another. Novelty is fairly strictly interpreted thus, one can obtain a patent on a compound which is within the scope of an earlier publication, which teaches a generic formula with multiple substituents on a core structural element, but which does not specifically show the now-claimed compound. Thus, to determine novelty, one compares the date of invention (US law) or priority filing date with the divulgation date of the supposed prior art. If the subject matter is the same and the divulgation date of the publication precedes the invention/filing date, then the invention fails the first test and cannot be patented. 

On 9 September 1958, ffie US Patent Office declared interference (a procedure carried out by US Patent law according to which the Board of Patent Appeals in the US Patent Office determines the priority of two or more inventions of identical or similar claim content with time overlap) between these five parties. Neither the parties nor the US Patent Office had considered including Karl Ziegler s patent rights in this proceeding. 

Since pyrethroid research is now, in many aspects, a finished chapter of apphed research, a historical treatment of the course of inventions is given (inventions, patent priorities). 

---