Talk:First to file and first to invent

message: This is explained again in Prior art. Someone should take care of it...
:Done. Gronky (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated in [[Prior art]]

message: The given example, added by User:65.110.29.163 and wikified by me, reports a first-to-file case in the United States, while the United States has a first-to-invent system. I am not sure whether the example is wrongly interpreted or whether the U.S. had not a first-to-invent system back in 1876. --Edcolins 08:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:According to Alexander Graham Bell "Bell got the patent because of the doctrine used" and oversimplification and wrong. 68.39.174.238 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: As discussed at Talk:Patent I have merged first to invent and first to file, and arbitrarily put the resulting article here.  I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it though, but cannot think of a suitable article name. Any ideas?  I'm sure the article also needs substantial work.  Kcordina  Talk  08:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I rewrote this article to correct the numerous errors in the original article.  I have also cited to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure to support my statements (the original articled lacked any support whatsoever).  The Example in the original article was also wrong and failed to properly apply U.S. law.  The MPEP is not an authoritative source (like a treatise or Federal Circuit case), but it can be easily accessed by all (unlike many reported cases which require Westlaw or Lexis access).
The article says that 'constructive reduction to practice' should be distinguished from 'actual reduction to practice'.  I'm not sure why.  There is an implication that the latter is superior.  I say it is different but equal.  I don't see that the reference given supports the implication.  Until some authority is given for the proposition, it should come out.
The article doesn't deal adequately with diligence.  It implies you are either diligent or you're not.  In practice, however, you may be diligent in fits and starts (or you may in fact be continuously diligent, but only be able in practice to prove diligence over part of the period in question).  This is important, both in theory and practice.  In interferences where the first to conceive and last to reduce to practice is not continuously diligent, his 'date of invention' will depend on his opponent's date of conception - because he has to prove diligence from before that date.  The law does not (in general) provide an invention date, but a rule for determining who beats whom.  And the rule is not transitive!  You can (theoretically) get a situation where A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.Twr57 (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors in article 

message: The example doesn't describe if Tweety is immune to a patent filed by Tom or Jerry. Is it the case that because Tweety didn't file for patent, she does not receive the patent, however because she conceived the idea earlier, no one can patent the idea?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Tom or Jerry can get a patent depends on whether Tweety's work was published or not - if it was, they can't.Twr57 (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

text: However, if Tweety has published her idea before 2006, then this publication can a basis to rejecte or invalidate Tom or Jerry's patent.
If someone wants to add the detail of the dates before which Tweety's publication would have to take place, that'd be great. Gronky (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example doesnt describe... 

message: See http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/inventions_and_patents/index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.151.221 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this just a bill? --Edcolins (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US now has a first-to-file system - article is outdated 

message: The sources provided for Canada do not seem to be balanced enough to meet our neutrality policy. See WP:NPOV. --Edcolins (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way? Genuinely curious. The source seems to be a peer reviewed academic paper. -- Colin Barrett (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that one source was not sufficient to support this statement about the effects. I have removed the tag and corrected the quote, for now. Not sure the paper was peer reviewed. --Edcolins (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, you're right in that the site it was published on, SSRN, is a preprint site. It seems to also be available through the National Bureau of Economic Research, but it's tough to say how official that is. Maybe it should say "One study found", or something along those lines, to indicate that it's significant but perhaps not necessarily the consensus? --Colin Barrett (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I have reworded the text accordingly. --Edcolins (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Canada is not the U.S... Alright. How is this statement relevant to the article? Please clarify. --Edcolins (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Let's say A has an idea on January 1st, and B has the same idea on January 10th.
A works diligently on a patent application, which he files on January 20th.
Meanwhile, B wrote about her idea in a blog entry on January 11th.
Can A validly get a patent, or does B's publication of the idea constitute prior art?
(The question is for first-to-file, but if someone has an answer about first-to-invent or how this exposes a difference between them, that would be interesting too.  This should be in the article.) Gronky (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on prior art 

message: As I understand it, first to file is not the same as first inventor to file. First to file systems, such as those used in the British Empire and others before most nations signed on to TRIPS, allowed the first entity (regardless of whether they were an inventor or not) to apply for patent rights. First inventor to file requires that the first filer also be an inventor. The US Constitution only allows Congress to grant a patent to an inventor, so the distinction is particularly relevant there. Thus, the reversion done by Edcolins makes the article factually incorrect. Accordingly, I have undone the revert by Edcolins. I'd be happy to discuss reverting it if anyone can show me that these two systems are in fact the same, or modifying to make what's there better.Univremonster (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this on the talk page. A first-to-file system does not allow the first entity, regardless of whether they were an inventor or not, to apply for patent rights and to validly obtain a patent. All first-to-file systems that I know provide that the applicant must be the inventor or his/its successor in title. See for instance . That the applicant must initially be the inventor (as in the U.S.) and cannot be its successor in title is, in my opinion, a minor difference between the first-to-file system and the first-inventor-to-file system, not a major difference (because many U.S. patent applications are later assigned to companies anyway...). The "first-inventor-to-file" system is a specific type of first-to-file system IMHO, so that we could make the first a sub-section of the latter. --Edcolins (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, a strict first-to-file system does allow the first entity to apply for patent rights and validly obtain a patent (for example, patent of importation - see James A. Falk, Originality or Novelty in Cases of Misappropriation of Ideas, 33 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 888, 901 n. 60 (1951)(describing the British Empire practice of granting patents to anyone - inventor or not - who introduced new or "lost" art)). I don't believe you'll find a direct cite that states the first-inventor-to-file is a hybrid of first-to-file and first-to-invent, as it's somewhat inherent in the terminology. I'd be fine taking that section out if it is unnecessary. Here are some sources that support the difference between first-to-file and first-inventor-to-file:  (1) David Kappos' speech regarding AIA in 2009 (transcript available at http://web.archive.org/web/20100410035850/http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009nov5.jsp)("The new process isn’t a 'first to file' system, it’s the 'first inventor to file' system. So there is no risk of someone who learns about your invention being able to beat you to the patent office; because they’re not an inventor.  As you know, any filer has to sign an oath and declaration under penalty of criminal sanctions"); (2) Toni Tease, New Act Brings Procedural Changes to Patent Law in the United States, 37-FEB MTLAW 12 (Feb. 2012); (3) Tsusung Hsieh, An Overview of U.S. Patent Law's First-to-Invent System, 5 National Taiwan University Law Review 27 (2010) ("some advocates of first-to-file patent systems suggest not converting to a true first-to-file system, but rather to a 'first-inventor-to-file' system. In such a system, patent rights are granted to the first applicant to seek a patent, but only if that applicant is an inventor. By elevating inventor-filers above mere filers, first-inventor-to-file systems, like the U.S. first-to-invent system, assume that some entitlement naturally rests with the actual first inventor. Therefore, how the U.S. is going to modify its first-to-invent system has turned from a mere dichotomy to multiple-choice situation")(footnotes omitted).Univremonster (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Inventor to File distinction from First to File and First to Invent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First to file and first to invent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720004424/http://www.rearden.com/public/090413_First_to_File_scholarly_papers_in_last_10_years-1.pdf to http://www.rearden.com/public/090413_First_to_File_scholarly_papers_in_last_10_years-1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified