5 ms·

If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually buil

If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.

bdowling 6y ago
> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people... In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
- erikerikson 6y ago
  What are these referencing? Ah... §101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html §112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
  - bdowling 6y ago
    Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.
mokus 6y ago
If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.
- nullc 6y ago
  Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work. The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice. Patents are presumed valid. So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?
    - nullc 6y ago
      Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.
- smolder 6y ago
  It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor This is not the case at all.
- mypalmike 6y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Not much to add. This simply isn't the case. You usually get the patent so that you can build it without wasting your time. Alternatively, you get the patent to stop a competitor.
dnautics 6y ago
> "reduced to practice" That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.

bdowling 6y ago

> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people... In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.

erikerikson 6y ago
What are these referencing? Ah... §101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html §112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
- bdowling 6y ago
  Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.

mokus 6y ago

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

nullc 6y ago
Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work. The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice. Patents are presumed valid. So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
- dnautics 6y ago
  Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?
  - nullc 6y ago
    Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.
smolder 6y ago
It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor This is not the case at all.

mypalmike 6y ago
Care to elaborate?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Not much to add. This simply isn't the case. You usually get the patent so that you can build it without wasting your time. Alternatively, you get the patent to stop a competitor.

dnautics 6y ago

> "reduced to practice" That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.