3 ms·

First To File does not negate the doctrine of prior art. This was a point that came up repeatedly against First To File and was repeatedly debunked, yet the mem

• legutierr 12y ago
  Perhaps the confusion comes from a particular set of facts that would seem to contradict what you are saying. Say company 1 is first to file for the patent. Company 2 has been working on the same product, but files late relative to company 1, so loses out in getting the patent. At the same time company 2 was, in fact, the first to invent. Wouldn't the earlier work performed by company 2 be prior art, and be used to invalidate company 1's patent? In that event, what is the value of a first-to-file system, if a competing inventor can use their earlier invention as prior art? And if a competing inventor can't use their evidence of earlier invention as prior art, why not? Perhaps it's simplistic, but common sense would seem to dictate that for "first to file" to mean anything, prior art would have to be disregarded.
  • derf_ 12y ago
    > In that event, what is the value of a first-to-file system, if a competing inventor can use their earlier invention as prior art? If company 2 had published their work, then it would count as prior art. The benefit of first-to-file is that there's no more expensive discovery to go through inventors' lab notebooks or other things to try to establish the definitive date when someone "invented" something. Instead, this gets reduced to checking a publication date, which should be a matter of public record. That reduces litigation costs. It also encourages people to publish their research. Both of those are good things.