Patent Law FAQ

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

An applicant can restore the right of priority if the U.S. application is filed after the 12-month deadline (or 6-month deadline for design applications) but within 2 months of the expiration of that period. This can be done through a petition process, provided the delay was unintentional.

According to MPEP 213.03: “As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design application), but within two months from the expiration of the period, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period was unintentional.”

The petition to restore the right of priority must include:

• The priority claim identifying the prior foreign application
• The petition fee
• A statement that the delay in filing was unintentional

The USPTO may require additional information to establish that the delay was unintentional.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on priority restoration, visit: priority restoration.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16, 2013, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) sets the time limit for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. The certified copy must be filed within the later of:

• Four months from the actual filing date of the application, or
• Sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application

This time limit does not apply to design applications. For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the time limit is set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2).

It’s important to note that there are exceptions to these time limits, as provided in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j).

For more information on certified copy, visit: certified copy.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on time limit, visit: time limit.

An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):

Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…

This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• intellectual property

Can I claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country?

No, you cannot claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country. The MPEP 213.02 states:

‘Note that a foreign filed provisional application is not eligible for priority benefit.’

Priority claims can only be made to non-provisional applications or other types of applications that are recognized under the Paris Convention. Provisional applications are unique to the U.S. patent system and are not recognized as priority documents in foreign countries or under international agreements.

To learn more:

• provisional application
• foreign priority
• Paris Convention

For international applications entering the national stage in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 371, the process for filing a foreign priority claim is different from regular U.S. applications. According to MPEP 214.01:

“The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.”

This means that you need to follow the time limits specified in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and its regulations when filing a priority claim for an international application entering the U.S. national stage.

For more detailed information on the timing and procedure for claiming priority in national stage applications, you should refer to MPEP § 213.06, which specifically deals with this topic.

To learn more:

• international application
• PCT
• national stage
• foreign priority
• filing deadline

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

For applications filed before March 16, 2013, the certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the pendency of the application. According to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1):

The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application.

However, it’s important to note that if the claim for priority or the certified copy is filed after the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• certified copy
• filing deadline
• patent application

The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:

It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.

This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• restricted options

Claiming priority to a foreign application generally does not affect the term of a U.S. patent. The patent term is typically calculated from the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

For utility and plant patents:
– The term is 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date of the application or any U.S. application to which it claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c).
– The foreign priority date is not used in this calculation.

For design patents:
– The term is 15 years from the date of grant.
– The filing or priority dates do not affect the term.

It’s important to note that while the foreign priority date doesn’t affect the patent term, it can affect the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which can be crucial for determining patentability.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) may be available to extend the term of a utility or plant patent due to delays in prosecution, but this is calculated based on the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

The front page of a patent includes the following information regarding foreign priority claims:

• The country of the foreign application
• The filing date of the foreign application
• The number of the foreign application

This information is included for applications where the bib-data sheet has been properly endorsed. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of the patent when it is issued, and the listing in the Official Gazette, will refer to the claim of priority, giving the country, the filing date, and the number of the foreign application in those applications in which the bib-data sheet has been endorsed.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and claiming benefit of a U.S. provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are similar in some ways but have important differences:

1. Time limit:
– Foreign priority: Must be claimed within 12 months (6 months for design applications)
– Provisional: Must be claimed within 12 months

2. Effective filing date:
– Both can provide an earlier effective filing date for prior art purposes

3. Patent term:
– Foreign priority: Does not affect patent term
– Provisional: The 12-month period counts towards the 20-year patent term

4. Disclosure requirements:
– Both require the earlier application to provide adequate support for the claimed invention

5. Formalities:
– Foreign priority: Requires a certified copy of the foreign application
– Provisional: No certified copy required, but the provisional must be in English

6. Inventorship:
– Foreign priority: Requires at least one common inventor
– Provisional: Requires at least one common inventor

7. International effect:
– Foreign priority: Recognized in other Paris Convention countries
– Provisional: May not be recognized in some foreign jurisdictions

Both types of priority claims can be valuable for establishing an earlier effective filing date, but they have different requirements and effects that should be considered when developing a patent strategy.

Claiming priority and claiming benefit are two different mechanisms in patent law, though both can affect the effective filing date of a patent application:

1. Claiming Priority:
   • Typically refers to claiming the right of priority to a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
   • Also includes priority claims to provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.55 for foreign priority claims
2. Claiming Benefit:
   • Refers to claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date of a U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)
   • Typically used for continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.78

The MPEP discusses both types of claims: “Under certain conditions and on fulfilling certain requirements, a later-filed application for patent filed in the United States may claim the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application filed in the United States (see 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c); see also 37 CFR 1.78) or in a foreign country (see 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b); see also 37 CFR 1.55).”

The front page of a patent includes the following information regarding foreign priority claims:

• The country of the foreign application
• The filing date of the foreign application
• The number of the foreign application

This information is included for applications where the bib-data sheet has been properly endorsed. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of the patent when it is issued, and the listing in the Official Gazette, will refer to the claim of priority, giving the country, the filing date, and the number of the foreign application in those applications in which the bib-data sheet has been endorsed.” (MPEP 202)

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:

• The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
• The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
• If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.

As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”

To learn more:

• AIA
• effective filing date
• foreign priority
• 35 U.S.C. 102(d)

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) allows the use of foreign priority application filing dates as the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which is a significant change from pre-AIA law. The MPEP states:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that if the U.S. patent document claims priority to one or more prior-filed foreign or international applications under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365, the patent or published application was effectively filed on the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.“

This means that if a U.S. patent document claims priority to a foreign application, and that foreign application describes the subject matter in question, the effective filing date for prior art purposes can be the filing date of the foreign application. This change potentially creates more prior art by allowing earlier effective filing dates based on foreign priority claims.

To learn more:

• AIA
• foreign priority
• effective filing date
• prior art

An applicant can restore the right of priority if the U.S. application is filed after the 12-month deadline (or 6-month deadline for design applications) but within 2 months of the expiration of that period. This can be done through a petition process, provided the delay was unintentional.

According to MPEP 213.03: “As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design application), but within two months from the expiration of the period, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period was unintentional.”

The petition to restore the right of priority must include:

• The priority claim identifying the prior foreign application
• The petition fee
• A statement that the delay in filing was unintentional

The USPTO may require additional information to establish that the delay was unintentional.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on priority restoration, visit: priority restoration.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

Claiming priority to a foreign application generally does not affect the term of a U.S. patent. The patent term is typically calculated from the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

For utility and plant patents:
– The term is 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date of the application or any U.S. application to which it claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c).
– The foreign priority date is not used in this calculation.

For design patents:
– The term is 15 years from the date of grant.
– The filing or priority dates do not affect the term.

It’s important to note that while the foreign priority date doesn’t affect the patent term, it can affect the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which can be crucial for determining patentability.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) may be available to extend the term of a utility or plant patent due to delays in prosecution, but this is calculated based on the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

Claiming foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and claiming benefit of a U.S. provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are similar in some ways but have important differences:

1. Time limit:
– Foreign priority: Must be claimed within 12 months (6 months for design applications)
– Provisional: Must be claimed within 12 months

2. Effective filing date:
– Both can provide an earlier effective filing date for prior art purposes

3. Patent term:
– Foreign priority: Does not affect patent term
– Provisional: The 12-month period counts towards the 20-year patent term

4. Disclosure requirements:
– Both require the earlier application to provide adequate support for the claimed invention

5. Formalities:
– Foreign priority: Requires a certified copy of the foreign application
– Provisional: No certified copy required, but the provisional must be in English

6. Inventorship:
– Foreign priority: Requires at least one common inventor
– Provisional: Requires at least one common inventor

7. International effect:
– Foreign priority: Recognized in other Paris Convention countries
– Provisional: May not be recognized in some foreign jurisdictions

Both types of priority claims can be valuable for establishing an earlier effective filing date, but they have different requirements and effects that should be considered when developing a patent strategy.

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16, 2013, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) sets the time limit for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. The certified copy must be filed within the later of:

• Four months from the actual filing date of the application, or
• Sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application

This time limit does not apply to design applications. For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the time limit is set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2).

It’s important to note that there are exceptions to these time limits, as provided in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j).

For more information on certified copy, visit: certified copy.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on time limit, visit: time limit.

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:

• The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
• The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
• If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.

As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”

To learn more:

• AIA
• effective filing date
• foreign priority
• 35 U.S.C. 102(d)

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) allows the use of foreign priority application filing dates as the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which is a significant change from pre-AIA law. The MPEP states:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that if the U.S. patent document claims priority to one or more prior-filed foreign or international applications under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365, the patent or published application was effectively filed on the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.“

This means that if a U.S. patent document claims priority to a foreign application, and that foreign application describes the subject matter in question, the effective filing date for prior art purposes can be the filing date of the foreign application. This change potentially creates more prior art by allowing earlier effective filing dates based on foreign priority claims.

To learn more:

• AIA
• foreign priority
• effective filing date
• prior art

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

An applicant can restore the right of priority if the U.S. application is filed after the 12-month deadline (or 6-month deadline for design applications) but within 2 months of the expiration of that period. This can be done through a petition process, provided the delay was unintentional.

According to MPEP 213.03: “As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design application), but within two months from the expiration of the period, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period was unintentional.”

The petition to restore the right of priority must include:

• The priority claim identifying the prior foreign application
• The petition fee
• A statement that the delay in filing was unintentional

The USPTO may require additional information to establish that the delay was unintentional.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on priority restoration, visit: priority restoration.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

Claiming priority to a foreign application generally does not affect the term of a U.S. patent. The patent term is typically calculated from the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

For utility and plant patents:
– The term is 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date of the application or any U.S. application to which it claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c).
– The foreign priority date is not used in this calculation.

For design patents:
– The term is 15 years from the date of grant.
– The filing or priority dates do not affect the term.

It’s important to note that while the foreign priority date doesn’t affect the patent term, it can affect the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which can be crucial for determining patentability.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) may be available to extend the term of a utility or plant patent due to delays in prosecution, but this is calculated based on the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:

• The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
• The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
• If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.

As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”

To learn more:

• AIA
• effective filing date
• foreign priority
• 35 U.S.C. 102(d)

The front page of a patent includes the following information regarding foreign priority claims:

• The country of the foreign application
• The filing date of the foreign application
• The number of the foreign application

This information is included for applications where the bib-data sheet has been properly endorsed. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of the patent when it is issued, and the listing in the Official Gazette, will refer to the claim of priority, giving the country, the filing date, and the number of the foreign application in those applications in which the bib-data sheet has been endorsed.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and claiming benefit of a U.S. provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are similar in some ways but have important differences:

1. Time limit:
– Foreign priority: Must be claimed within 12 months (6 months for design applications)
– Provisional: Must be claimed within 12 months

2. Effective filing date:
– Both can provide an earlier effective filing date for prior art purposes

3. Patent term:
– Foreign priority: Does not affect patent term
– Provisional: The 12-month period counts towards the 20-year patent term

4. Disclosure requirements:
– Both require the earlier application to provide adequate support for the claimed invention

5. Formalities:
– Foreign priority: Requires a certified copy of the foreign application
– Provisional: No certified copy required, but the provisional must be in English

6. Inventorship:
– Foreign priority: Requires at least one common inventor
– Provisional: Requires at least one common inventor

7. International effect:
– Foreign priority: Recognized in other Paris Convention countries
– Provisional: May not be recognized in some foreign jurisdictions

Both types of priority claims can be valuable for establishing an earlier effective filing date, but they have different requirements and effects that should be considered when developing a patent strategy.

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) allows the use of foreign priority application filing dates as the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which is a significant change from pre-AIA law. The MPEP states:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that if the U.S. patent document claims priority to one or more prior-filed foreign or international applications under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365, the patent or published application was effectively filed on the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.“

This means that if a U.S. patent document claims priority to a foreign application, and that foreign application describes the subject matter in question, the effective filing date for prior art purposes can be the filing date of the foreign application. This change potentially creates more prior art by allowing earlier effective filing dates based on foreign priority claims.

To learn more:

• AIA
• foreign priority
• effective filing date
• prior art

Claiming priority and claiming benefit are two different mechanisms in patent law, though both can affect the effective filing date of a patent application:

1. Claiming Priority:
   • Typically refers to claiming the right of priority to a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
   • Also includes priority claims to provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.55 for foreign priority claims
2. Claiming Benefit:
   • Refers to claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date of a U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)
   • Typically used for continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.78

The MPEP discusses both types of claims: “Under certain conditions and on fulfilling certain requirements, a later-filed application for patent filed in the United States may claim the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application filed in the United States (see 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c); see also 37 CFR 1.78) or in a foreign country (see 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b); see also 37 CFR 1.55).”

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16, 2013, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) sets the time limit for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. The certified copy must be filed within the later of:

• Four months from the actual filing date of the application, or
• Sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application

This time limit does not apply to design applications. For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the time limit is set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2).

It’s important to note that there are exceptions to these time limits, as provided in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j).

For more information on certified copy, visit: certified copy.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on time limit, visit: time limit.

An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):

Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…

This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• intellectual property

Can I claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country?

No, you cannot claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country. The MPEP 213.02 states:

‘Note that a foreign filed provisional application is not eligible for priority benefit.’

Priority claims can only be made to non-provisional applications or other types of applications that are recognized under the Paris Convention. Provisional applications are unique to the U.S. patent system and are not recognized as priority documents in foreign countries or under international agreements.

To learn more:

• provisional application
• foreign priority
• Paris Convention

For international applications entering the national stage in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 371, the process for filing a foreign priority claim is different from regular U.S. applications. According to MPEP 214.01:

“The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.”

This means that you need to follow the time limits specified in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and its regulations when filing a priority claim for an international application entering the U.S. national stage.

For more detailed information on the timing and procedure for claiming priority in national stage applications, you should refer to MPEP § 213.06, which specifically deals with this topic.

To learn more:

• international application
• PCT
• national stage
• foreign priority
• filing deadline

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

For applications filed before March 16, 2013, the certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the pendency of the application. According to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1):

The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application.

However, it’s important to note that if the claim for priority or the certified copy is filed after the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• certified copy
• filing deadline
• patent application

The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:

It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.

This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• restricted options

An applicant can restore the right of priority if the U.S. application is filed after the 12-month deadline (or 6-month deadline for design applications) but within 2 months of the expiration of that period. This can be done through a petition process, provided the delay was unintentional.

According to MPEP 213.03: “As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design application), but within two months from the expiration of the period, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period was unintentional.”

The petition to restore the right of priority must include:

• The priority claim identifying the prior foreign application
• The petition fee
• A statement that the delay in filing was unintentional

The USPTO may require additional information to establish that the delay was unintentional.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on priority restoration, visit: priority restoration.

For more information on unintentional delay, visit: unintentional delay.

Claiming priority to a foreign application generally does not affect the term of a U.S. patent. The patent term is typically calculated from the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

For utility and plant patents:
– The term is 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date of the application or any U.S. application to which it claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c).
– The foreign priority date is not used in this calculation.

For design patents:
– The term is 15 years from the date of grant.
– The filing or priority dates do not affect the term.

It’s important to note that while the foreign priority date doesn’t affect the patent term, it can affect the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which can be crucial for determining patentability.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) may be available to extend the term of a utility or plant patent due to delays in prosecution, but this is calculated based on the actual U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:

• The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
• The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
• If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.

As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”

To learn more:

• AIA
• effective filing date
• foreign priority
• 35 U.S.C. 102(d)

The front page of a patent includes the following information regarding foreign priority claims:

• The country of the foreign application
• The filing date of the foreign application
• The number of the foreign application

This information is included for applications where the bib-data sheet has been properly endorsed. As stated in the MPEP: “The front page of the patent when it is issued, and the listing in the Official Gazette, will refer to the claim of priority, giving the country, the filing date, and the number of the foreign application in those applications in which the bib-data sheet has been endorsed.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and claiming benefit of a U.S. provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) are similar in some ways but have important differences:

1. Time limit:
– Foreign priority: Must be claimed within 12 months (6 months for design applications)
– Provisional: Must be claimed within 12 months

2. Effective filing date:
– Both can provide an earlier effective filing date for prior art purposes

3. Patent term:
– Foreign priority: Does not affect patent term
– Provisional: The 12-month period counts towards the 20-year patent term

4. Disclosure requirements:
– Both require the earlier application to provide adequate support for the claimed invention

5. Formalities:
– Foreign priority: Requires a certified copy of the foreign application
– Provisional: No certified copy required, but the provisional must be in English

6. Inventorship:
– Foreign priority: Requires at least one common inventor
– Provisional: Requires at least one common inventor

7. International effect:
– Foreign priority: Recognized in other Paris Convention countries
– Provisional: May not be recognized in some foreign jurisdictions

Both types of priority claims can be valuable for establishing an earlier effective filing date, but they have different requirements and effects that should be considered when developing a patent strategy.

Foreign priority does not affect the calculation of patent term in the United States. As stated in the MPEP, Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered in determining the term of a patent. This means that the 20-year term is calculated from the U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• patent term
• international applications

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) allows the use of foreign priority application filing dates as the effective filing date for prior art purposes, which is a significant change from pre-AIA law. The MPEP states:

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that if the U.S. patent document claims priority to one or more prior-filed foreign or international applications under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365, the patent or published application was effectively filed on the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.“

This means that if a U.S. patent document claims priority to a foreign application, and that foreign application describes the subject matter in question, the effective filing date for prior art purposes can be the filing date of the foreign application. This change potentially creates more prior art by allowing earlier effective filing dates based on foreign priority claims.

To learn more:

• AIA
• foreign priority
• effective filing date
• prior art

Claiming priority and claiming benefit are two different mechanisms in patent law, though both can affect the effective filing date of a patent application:

1. Claiming Priority:
   • Typically refers to claiming the right of priority to a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
   • Also includes priority claims to provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.55 for foreign priority claims
2. Claiming Benefit:
   • Refers to claiming the benefit of an earlier filing date of a U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)
   • Typically used for continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications
   • Governed by 37 CFR 1.78

The MPEP discusses both types of claims: “Under certain conditions and on fulfilling certain requirements, a later-filed application for patent filed in the United States may claim the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application filed in the United States (see 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c); see also 37 CFR 1.78) or in a foreign country (see 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b); see also 37 CFR 1.55).”

For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16, 2013, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) sets the time limit for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. The certified copy must be filed within the later of:

• Four months from the actual filing date of the application, or
• Sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application

This time limit does not apply to design applications. For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the time limit is set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2).

It’s important to note that there are exceptions to these time limits, as provided in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j).

For more information on certified copy, visit: certified copy.

For more information on foreign priority, visit: foreign priority.

For more information on time limit, visit: time limit.

An inventor’s certificate is a form of intellectual property protection offered in some countries. It can form the basis for priority rights under certain conditions, as stated in 35 U.S.C. 119(d):

Applications for inventors’ certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents…

This means that if an applicant had the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate in the foreign country, they can claim priority based on the inventor’s certificate application in the United States.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• intellectual property

Can I claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country?

No, you cannot claim priority to a provisional application filed in a foreign country. The MPEP 213.02 states:

‘Note that a foreign filed provisional application is not eligible for priority benefit.’

Priority claims can only be made to non-provisional applications or other types of applications that are recognized under the Paris Convention. Provisional applications are unique to the U.S. patent system and are not recognized as priority documents in foreign countries or under international agreements.

To learn more:

• provisional application
• foreign priority
• Paris Convention

For international applications entering the national stage in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 371, the process for filing a foreign priority claim is different from regular U.S. applications. According to MPEP 214.01:

“The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.”

This means that you need to follow the time limits specified in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and its regulations when filing a priority claim for an international application entering the U.S. national stage.

For more detailed information on the timing and procedure for claiming priority in national stage applications, you should refer to MPEP § 213.06, which specifically deals with this topic.

To learn more:

• international application
• PCT
• national stage
• foreign priority
• filing deadline

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

For applications filed before March 16, 2013, the certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the pendency of the application. According to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1):

The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application.

However, it’s important to note that if the claim for priority or the certified copy is filed after the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction.

To learn more:

• foreign priority
• certified copy
• filing deadline
• patent application

The USPTO recognizes that some countries have restrictions on who can apply for patents versus inventor’s certificates. As stated in MPEP 213.05:

It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.

This means that even if an applicant was restricted to filing for an inventor’s certificate in their home country due to employment or nationality, they can still claim priority in the US based on that filing. The key factor is whether the option to file for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate generally existed in the country for the particular subject matter, not whether the specific applicant had that choice.

To learn more:

• inventor’s certificate
• patent priority
• foreign priority
• restricted options