Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Inequitable Conduct (1)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
MPEP 2000 – Duty Of Disclosure (3)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 must disclose information about copending U.S. patent applications that are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This includes:
- Identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee
- Applications that disclose similar subject matter
- Prior art references from one application that are material to patentability of another application
The MPEP emphasizes: [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
It’s important to note that examiners cannot be assumed to be aware of all related applications, so applicants must bring this information to their attention.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) is a formal document submitted to the USPTO during patent prosecution to disclose relevant prior art or other material information. According to 37 CFR 1.97, as referenced in the MPEP, The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 specify when an information disclosure statement will be considered as a matter of right and when a certification must be made and/or fee submitted in order to have the information disclosure statement considered.
The IDS is a crucial part of fulfilling the duty of disclosure to the USPTO, ensuring that the patent examiner has all relevant information when considering the patentability of an invention.
MPEP 2001.06 – Sources Of Information Under 37 Cfr 1.56 (1)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 must disclose information about copending U.S. patent applications that are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This includes:
- Identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee
- Applications that disclose similar subject matter
- Prior art references from one application that are material to patentability of another application
The MPEP emphasizes: [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
It’s important to note that examiners cannot be assumed to be aware of all related applications, so applicants must bring this information to their attention.
MPEP 2003 – Disclosure — When Made (1)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) is a formal document submitted to the USPTO during patent prosecution to disclose relevant prior art or other material information. According to 37 CFR 1.97, as referenced in the MPEP, The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 specify when an information disclosure statement will be considered as a matter of right and when a certification must be made and/or fee submitted in order to have the information disclosure statement considered.
The IDS is a crucial part of fulfilling the duty of disclosure to the USPTO, ensuring that the patent examiner has all relevant information when considering the patentability of an invention.
MPEP 2016 – Fraud (1)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
Or Violation Of Duty Of Disclosure Affects All Claims (1)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
Patent Law (3)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 must disclose information about copending U.S. patent applications that are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This includes:
- Identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee
- Applications that disclose similar subject matter
- Prior art references from one application that are material to patentability of another application
The MPEP emphasizes: [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
It’s important to note that examiners cannot be assumed to be aware of all related applications, so applicants must bring this information to their attention.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) is a formal document submitted to the USPTO during patent prosecution to disclose relevant prior art or other material information. According to 37 CFR 1.97, as referenced in the MPEP, The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 specify when an information disclosure statement will be considered as a matter of right and when a certification must be made and/or fee submitted in order to have the information disclosure statement considered.
The IDS is a crucial part of fulfilling the duty of disclosure to the USPTO, ensuring that the patent examiner has all relevant information when considering the patentability of an invention.
Patent Procedure (3)
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
According to MPEP 2016, a finding of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure affects all claims in a patent application or patent, rendering them unpatentable or invalid. The MPEP states:
“A finding of ‘fraud,’ ‘inequitable conduct,’ or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.”
This means that even if the misconduct is related to only one claim, it affects the entire patent.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 must disclose information about copending U.S. patent applications that are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This includes:
- Identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee
- Applications that disclose similar subject matter
- Prior art references from one application that are material to patentability of another application
The MPEP emphasizes: [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
It’s important to note that examiners cannot be assumed to be aware of all related applications, so applicants must bring this information to their attention.
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) is a formal document submitted to the USPTO during patent prosecution to disclose relevant prior art or other material information. According to 37 CFR 1.97, as referenced in the MPEP, The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 specify when an information disclosure statement will be considered as a matter of right and when a certification must be made and/or fee submitted in order to have the information disclosure statement considered.
The IDS is a crucial part of fulfilling the duty of disclosure to the USPTO, ensuring that the patent examiner has all relevant information when considering the patentability of an invention.