How does the AIA treat an inventor’s own prior use compared to pre-AIA law?
The AIA treats an inventor’s own prior use differently from pre-AIA law. Under the AIA, an inventor’s own public use is subject to the same rules as third-party public uses, but with important exceptions. The MPEP explains: “The public use provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) thus has the same substantive scope, with respect to…
Read MoreWhat are inventor-originated prior public disclosures?
Inventor-originated prior public disclosures are another type of prior art exception under the America Invents Act (AIA). These disclosures refer to public disclosures made by the inventor or a joint inventor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The MPEP section 2153 mentions this concept: See MPEP § 2153.02 for prior art exceptions…
Read MoreWhat is the inventor-originated prior public disclosure exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B)?
The inventor-originated prior public disclosure exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) provides protection against certain prior art. As stated in MPEP 2154.02(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) provides a second exception to prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This provision excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject…
Read MoreHow does the inventor-originated disclosure exception work under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)?
The inventor-originated disclosure exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art. According to MPEP 2154.02(a): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) provides an exception to the prior art provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This exception limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when…
Read MoreHow does the “otherwise available to the public” provision affect internet disclosures?
The “otherwise available to the public” provision in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) significantly affects how internet disclosures are treated as potential prior art. According to MPEP 2152.02(e): “[A] document electronically posted on the Internet (see, e.g., Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 104 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2012), In re…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between interference and derivation proceedings?
While both interference and derivation proceedings deal with competing claims to an invention, they serve different purposes and apply to different time periods in U.S. patent law. The MPEP 2301 briefly mentions derivation proceedings: “See MPEP § 2310 et seq. for discussion of derivation proceedings.” Key differences include: Interference Proceedings: Apply to pre-AIA (before March…
Read MoreWhat replaced inter partes reexamination?
Inter partes reexamination was replaced by inter partes review (IPR) as part of the America Invents Act (AIA). While not explicitly stated in MPEP 2627, the section notes that inter partes reexamination requests were discontinued after September 16, 2012. This date coincides with the implementation of IPR, which offers a similar but more streamlined process…
Read MoreWhen did inter partes reexamination requests cease to be accepted?
Inter partes reexamination requests ceased to be accepted on September 16, 2012. According to MPEP 2612, “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This change was part of the America Invents Act (AIA) reforms to the patent system. To learn more: inter partes reexamination patent law AIA…
Read MoreWhat happened to inter partes reexamination under the America Invents Act?
The America Invents Act (AIA) replaced the inter partes reexamination process with inter partes review. According to the MPEP: “Effective September 16, 2012, section 6(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the AIA), Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, replaced the inter partes reexamination process that was established by the AIPA with an inter partes…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of naming inventors in publications and patent applications?
The naming of inventors in publications and patent applications is crucial for determining whether a disclosure qualifies for the grace period inventor-originated disclosure exception. The MPEP provides specific guidance: “This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons named as authors in the publication (e.g., the…
Read More