ILNews

First-Inventor-to-File system creates uncertainty

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

With the United States switching to a First-Inventor-to-File patent system, innovators developing new products in their garages and in small shops may have to invest in a good pair of running shoes.

Previously, the U.S. patent system operated under the First-to-Invent concept where, in broad terms, whoever invented the technology or pharmaceutical first got the patent pretty much regardless of when they filed the application. On March 16, 2013, the country converted to the First-Inventor-to-File system which means, loosely speaking, that the inventor who shows up at the patent office first will get the patent even if that individual was not the first to create the device.

blinkless-inverter-15col.jpg Daniel Rittmeyer, employee at Mechanical Electrical Systems, wires the patented Blinkless Grid Synchronization Inverter that can switch power sources without interruption. (Submitted photo)

This is the third major provision to be implemented of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hailed the switch as bringing greater transparency, predictably and simplicity to the patent granting process. In addition, it is another step in harmonizing U.S. patent law with that of other industrialized countries.

However, critics contend that switching systems gives larger, better-financed companies an advantage over smaller companies and start-ups. Some even go so far as to worry the rate of innovation in the U.S. will decline as a result.

Indiana attorneys do not foresee the end of American invention and creativity because of the new system, but they acknowledge the change could be harder on smaller entities than larger ones. What they are sure of, though, is that innovators, regardless of size, will have to get to the patent office quickly.

“It places a premium on filing a patent application as early as possible,” said Jason Houdek, partner at Krieg DeVault LLP. “There always was a premium on that, but it’s just more important now.”

houdek Houdek

Small v. large

Large businesses are not untouched by the switch to the First-Inventor-to-File system. They will have to make decisions sooner about what to patent, which could be difficult to do since the company will have an internal bureaucracy to maneuver.

Moreover, the push to file quickly may be more of an obstacle for some larger companies because of what they develop. For example, a pharmaceutical company filing too soon could be denied patent protection because it submitted an application before the research on the new drug was completed.

Schantz-Matthew.jpg Schantz

Still, the heavier burden of the new system will be born by smaller companies.

The garage innovators and little shops usually have neither the financial resources to immediately file a patent application nor the processes in place to capture what is being developed, said Matthew Schantz, attorney at Frost Brown Todd LLC. Small companies are less likely to have a system for the technicians or developers to alert management that the invention they are working on is special enough to warrant a patent.

“I think the effect on small inventors is unfortunate,” Schantz said, noting many of them have good innovations and are often thinking of something new. “They’ll have a hard time protecting it under the new system.”

Another burden will be marshalling the resources needed to file the patent application. Citing statistics from the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Schantz noted the average cost of filing a provisional patent application is $3,500. On top of that, filling out the application and providing the very detailed explanations of the new item require a company to put in a lot of time and effort.

Houdek agreed that companies, large and small, will have to dedicate more resources to filing a patent application in a shorter period of time, but the costs will probably not be an insurmountable hurdle to small entities. Compared to the costs of opening the company and running daily operations, the $1,000 to $5,000 needed to apply for a provisional patent is minor.

“I’m in the camp (the First-Inventor-to File system) does make it harder, but it is not an end to innovation mainly because the expense of starting a business is much greater than filing a patent application,” Houdek said.

This new patent system may be a wake-up call to the start-ups and solo inventors, said Charles Schmal, partner at Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP. Often small entities do not think about filing applications and are not aware of the law, let alone of the change in patent system. Now, with the need to file first, they may start paying attention.

Protecting innovation

Mechanical Electrical Systems in Indianapolis received its first patent about six months ago. The company, founded in 1979, used off-the-shelf technology to create the Blinkless Grid Synchronization Inverter which can switch power sources without interruption.

Gary Gengenbach, engineer and a silent partner at the company, said MES decided to get a patent after colleagues encouraged them to protect the Blinkless product. He noted infringement could still happen, and then the company would then have to decide whether to put the resources into litigation.

schmal-chuck1.jpg Schmal

In the “First-Inventor-to-File” world, many small companies are worried that the bigger players will steal their ideas then hide behind the new patent system.

“I’m really skeptical whether, in the long term, that (having to file quickly) will be a problem for them,” Mark Janis, director of the Center of Intellectual Property Research at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said of smaller entities.

In the short term, he expects there to be some fear and uncertainty, but he is hopeful that after awhile those concerns will dissipate and the patent world will not be all that different from what it was before March 16.

“I think a half-dozen years from now, people will say this was not as big a change as some said,” Janis predicted.

The America Invents Act does contain protections for inventors who discover something first but arrive at the patent office second. Included in the provisions are the derivation proceedings.

According to the patent office, the new procedure will ensure that individuals who did not actually invent the item will not be able to obtain a patent. True inventors will be able to challenge any first applicant’s right to a patent by demonstrating that the first application is claiming an invention derived from the true inventor.

Still, the derivation proceeding, like the former interference proceeding, is complex and expensive. Schmal does not recommend that companies rely on the proceeding to protect their inventions but rather they should file their patents early.

Inventors can also gain some protection by publicly disclosing their discoveries. Publishing in a journal or making a presentation at a trade show could establish who conceived the idea first.

The true impact of the First-Inventor-to-File system will not be known for years, but Schantz sees potential benefits. He believes the need to patent more quickly will spur companies to capture their inventions sooner. On top of that, with the public disclosure rule, innovators will have an incentive to unveil their devices whether they ultimately apply for a patent or not.

All of the innovation becoming public will boost the American economy, Schantz said. The U.S. competes globally not by having the most unskilled labor but by being creative. If First-Inventor-to-File makes companies more aware of their inventions and gets these inventions into the public domain, that will be good for the economy.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT