3 ms·
From your comments in this thread, your understanding of first to file is incorrect. First to file doesn't invalidate un-filed prior art or give it lower prese
by learc83 9y ago
From your comments in this thread, your understanding of first to file is incorrect.
First to file doesn't invalidate un-filed prior art or give it lower presedence.
First to file only really matters when there are overlapping patent applications. Basically a situation where one person files first but the other applicant claims they actually invented first but didn't publish the invention.
Had the person who claims they invented first published their invention, they'd have a year to file.
If that year was up, their prior art could still prevent the other applicant from being granted a patent the same as it would be under first to invent.
- geocar 9y ago> First to file doesn't invalidate un-filed prior art or give it lower presedence. I'm not saying it invalidates anything. I'm saying this kind of arm-chair lawyering isn't going to impress a judge. > First to file only really matters when there are overlapping patent applications. 35 USC 102 (b).
- learc83 9y ago35 USC 102 (b) covers the exception that allows an inventor up to a year to file after publishing their invention. It prevents an inventor's own disclosure from being used as prior art to deny the inventor's patent request--provided the patent was filed within a year of the disclosure. What do you think it says? >I'm not saying it invalidates anything. You said this: >They do not have to pay as much attention to un-filed prior art because the US uses a "first-to-file"[2] system. That implies that un-filed prior art was made less important by first to file, which is incorrect. >I'm saying this kind of arm-chair lawyering isn't going to impress a judge. Good thing I'm not trying to impress a judge. I'm just trying to stop the spread of misinformation on first to file.