|
|
Aussies Update Patent Laws
Beginning April 1, 2002, Australia requires "universal novelty" for an invention to be patentable. This means that the claimed invention must be novel and inventive when compared to information in any document that is publicly available anywhere in the world or with information made publicly available through the "doing of an act" anywhere in the world. Previously, only publication or acts in Australia could destroy novelty.
The law has further been amended to more closely track the law in the U.S. so that any publication or use of an invention before the filing of an Australian patent application will not be barred if an application is filed within 12 months of the publication or use. Note that a PCT or other priority application will not suffice after a disclosure has been made; an Australian application must be filed.
This change provides inventors who make a disclosure of their invention before filing an application an additional country in which protection is still available, provided they act within 12 months. The law applies only to disclosures made after April 1, 2002.
|
| |
Patent grants by the numbers
The USPTO released U.S. patent statistics for the 2004 calendar year. In all, the USPTO granted 164,293 patent documents. 164,293 were utility applications, 15,695 were design applications, 1,016 were plant applications, 298 were reissue applications and 20 were statutory invention registrations. 47% of the allowed applications were awarded to inventors with foreign citizenship.
| Statewide
Totals | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | | Alabama | 441 | 459 | 412 | 359 | 429 | | Arkansas | 213 | 176 | 160 | 153 | 185 | | Georgia | 1532 | 1537 | 1492 | 1358 | 1719 | | Kentucky | 496 | 495 | 463 | 377 | 471 | | Mississippi | 180 | 184 | 159 | 127 | 152 | | Missouri | 962 | 946 | 895 | 732 | 863 | | Tennessee | 1003 | 975 | 874 | 712 | 817 |
|
| |
Timing is Everything
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that an offer to sell an invention prior to the critical date need not specifically identify claim limitations. Also, the seller need not recognize the significance of those claim limitations at the time of the offer to start the 102(b) on sale bar clock ticking. In Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., the Court stated that if the waste recycling process offered by Scaltech inherently possessed each of the claim limitations, then the process was "on sale." It did not matter if the seller did or did not recognize that the process possessed the later claimed characteristics.
To trigger the on sale bar, however, the invention offered for sale must be something within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the 102(b) analysis will include a determination of whether the subject matter of the sale met each limitation of the claim and was an embodiment of the invention.
At Waddey & Patterson, we can help you determine the best paths to take for your individual needs both before and after filing for a patent application so you can avoid pitfalls that may bar you from obtaining a patent. We also recommend consulting with us before any offer for sale or public disclosure of your invention. |
| |
USPTO Takes the Money and Runs
The USPTO, in streamlining its processing of patent applications, has announced that it has established an objective to issue patents within four weeks of payment of the issue fee. Prior to this objective, the average time from payment of the issue fee to issue was about three months. To achieve this objective, the USPTO is changing certain processes for publishing patents.
Waddey & Patterson reminds its clients that the issue date triggers certain filing deadlines in the USPTO. For example, a divisional application must be filed before the patent issues. The new, quicker issue date may reduce the time for filing a divisional application from about three months to four weeks.
In most circumstances, you will want to take advantage of this new objective to maximize the patent term. Now, filing papers after allowance (such as amendments, information disclosure statements, corrected or formal drawings) will more than likely delay issuance of the patent. |
| |
...make that with Lettuce on Rye
As of November 1, 2000, it is now possible to designate Turkey in a PCT application. Turkey may be designated for either a national patent or a European patent or both.
Effective November 1, 2000, the designation fee for additional countries in a PCT application is $82 per country. This is a $10 reduction resulting from changes in the currency exchange rate. |
| |
|
If you have questions about intellectual property law,
Waddey & Patterson has answers. Any Questions?
Roundabout Plaza, Suite 500 • 1600 Division Street •
Nashville, TN 37203 • 615-242-2400
Please read our firm's disclaimer.
Waddey & Patterson, P.C.
Web development and managed hosting by Acuity Marketing Communications, Inc.
|
|
|
