OT: Patent Law

C

CIMulation

New member
I don't know how many of you can help answer my question, but it is in regards to patent law. Person A invents a part, does not obtain a patent, but has been selling the parts commercially for 6 months. Person B designs the same part 6 months later and also sells commercially. Is person B able to obtain a patent? Would person A be in violation of person B's patent? Sorry for the off topic question. TIA
 
man ,,no attorney here but ,,,,you might be in violation if he does patent it before you , your better off going to see a patent attorney for a small fee . im sure there something us normal folks dont know about when it come to patents . they can be very tricky and worth big money to the right people
 
I'd take any legal advice on this site with a huge grain of salt. See an actual PA if you're thinking about acquiring a patent or have patent concerns. I'd have to agree with dendro, though. In theory, no one can undercut your invention with a patent, assuming you invented it and created prior art before that person applied for the patent. In practice, the system isn't perfect and some people get screwed by it. IMO, the biggest problem about patents and patent law is the incredible price and time needed to litigate and/or defend patents. It really works against the small business owner.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14643247#post14643247 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
ee an actual PA if you're thinking about acquiring a patent or have patent concerns. I'd take any legal advice on this site with a huge grain of salt.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14643247#post14643247 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
S I'd have to agree with dendro, though. In theory, no one can undercut your invention with a patent, assuming you invented it and created prior art before that person applied for the patent.
Click to expand...
This however is not true. The U.S. and most of the world is "first to file" meaning if someone invents a technology and decides to sit on it for a period of time and not file, someone else can file a patent and assuming it is granted would receive all the benefits of that patent protection. It's a first to file system, not a first to invent.

In essence, that is CIMulation's question however in his hypo he mentioned that the product was already commercialized. Once a product hits the open market, it's out there in the public domain and cannot be patented by anyone.
 
Right, prior art invalidates patents for lack of novelty. Having said that, person A in this situation is still screwed. To effectively claim that prior art exists, person A would have to show that knowledge of the technology was in the public domain (that it was not novel). If he does produce evidence he was the original creator of the part he ironically undermined his own ability to patent it. If he kept everything super secret and there is no public knowledge of his technology, guess what? Person B's patent was novel and he was first to file. Either way, Person A would not be getting patent protection under any scenario I can see.

This is of course ignoring the obvious "THIS IS NOT NOVEL" evidence created by selling the part on the open market.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14643116#post14643116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dendronepthya
Neither can seek patent protection. The part has been sold on the market. Too late to file.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that is right. I invented something for a fish tank and wrote an article about it in a club newsletter on how to build it. And I took it to a couple of the big local fish shows. And made a few for interested people. A guy who lived very close to one of the fish shows I took it to, rewrote my article slightly, changing the part where I explained how I got the idea. His version was he saw it fullblown in a dream, but the rest was close to word for word the same. My sketches were redone, upgraded from napkin to blueprint quality but otherwise outright copies. He sold the slightly rewritten article to FAMA, and got a patent on my invention. So inventing, publishing, demo-ing, and selling are not sure to prevent someone else from patenting your idea.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14648141#post14648141 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BrunstuckyJoe
Marconi?
Click to expand...
Chinese inventor Kung-Foo-Whing in 968, although today it would be called a speaking tube, not our modern concept of a telephone. By act of Congress, Antonio Meucci is the inventor of the electrical telephone in 1849. But Bell got the patents (and the money rights) in 1860.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14648048#post14648048 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rhodophyta
I'm not so sure that is right. I invented something for a fish tank and wrote an article about it in a club newsletter on how to build it. And I took it to a couple of the big local fish shows. And made a few for interested people. A guy who lived very close to one of the fish shows I took it to, rewrote my article slightly, changing the part where I explained how I got the idea. His version was he saw it fullblown in a dream, but the rest was close to word for word the same. My sketches were redone, upgraded from napkin to blueprint quality but otherwise outright copies. He sold the slightly rewritten article to FAMA, and got a patent on my invention. So inventing, publishing, demo-ing, and selling are not sure to prevent someone else from patenting your idea.
Click to expand...

Pretty big difference between an issued patent and one that actually provides protection. You will know whether your patent is valid if it ever goes to court. The fact that all that public disclosure happened before filing does not help your cause. I work for Ohio University and often collaborate on projects with the Office of Technology Transfer that manages the University's IP. It is a really big deal if the researcher publishes a scientific journal before the office has a chance to seek patent protection. Actually selling something before filing is IP death.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14650154#post14650154 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dendronepthya
Pretty big difference between an issued patent and one that actually provides protection. You will know whether your patent is valid if it ever goes to court. The fact that all that public disclosure happened before filing does not help your cause. I work for Ohio University and often collaborate on projects with the Office of Technology Transfer that manages the University's IP. It is a really big deal if the researcher publishes a scientific journal before the office has a chance to seek patent protection. Actually selling something before filing is IP death.
Click to expand...
That was what I had hoped. I wanted it to be public domain, something anyone could make if they wanted to, so I was really surprised when it received a patent. All outdated now anyway. It was an air-operated UGF with no lift tubes, just a bubble wall. It stored up part of the air in the plenum, then periodically released that saved air all at once through a sieve to create a wave/surge effect. The guy left out the part of the article where I explained the drawbacks/limitations of the design, maintenance, and the surge effect, so I imagine the surge was a bit of a surprise to anyone with his unit.
 
That's pretty cool.

As an aside, don't take legal advice from me or any other hack on the internet. If anyone has a real IP issue, they do need to see a patent attorney with domain expertise. The details make all the difference when it comes to what patents are likely valid and which ones are not. Patent claims are not written for lay persons, even those with law degrees that are not practicing specifically in intellectual property.
 
I once sought to patent a process, the first thing the patent attorney did was institute a patent search to see if if this had ever been done before. The process involved several steps and after 6 months and about 2500.00 it turned out the process was only partial patentable and I could pursue it but the attorney informed me it could take several years and maybe as much as 10,000 to 15,000 to pursue getting it patented. I do not know if inventions run the same course or not. Just my experince
 
That sounds like par for the course to file for one. Long term maintenance of a patent with several international filings could be a ton more expensive over the life of the patent. Several hundred thousand dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
High Zinc in ICP Test & Switching to ATI Essentials – Need Advice
Replies
17
Views
3K
Reefing102
Reefing102
T
Looking for a specific tank build - EZTube.com sent me here
Replies
6
Views
825
Reefing102
Reefing102
C
Coral placement and water flow
Replies
5
Views
1K
wvned
wvned
cilyjr
Cilyjr 320 gallon on the central coast
Replies
12
Views
2K
rogerwilco357
rogerwilco357
xLennie
About the Quarantine process
Replies
5
Views
1K
HumbleFish
HumbleFish
Back
Top