1 / 16

Best Practices in Protecting Intellectual Property Issues

For presentation at the 2006 Annual AIChE Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Best Practices in Protecting Intellectual Property Issues. Robert C. Hyta, M.S., J.D. & Paul E. Rossler, P.E., Ph.D @ Martin S. High, P.E., Ph.D., J.D #. Paper Goals. Provide an overview of goals of the U.S. patent system

kennan
Télécharger la présentation

Best Practices in Protecting Intellectual Property Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Forpresentation at the 2006 Annual AIChE Meeting, San Francisco, CA Best Practices in Protecting Intellectual Property Issues Robert C. Hyta, M.S., J.D.& Paul E. Rossler, P.E., Ph.D@ Martin S. High, P.E., Ph.D., J.D#

  2. Paper Goals • Provide an overview of goals of the U.S. patent system • Discuss the key elements that trip up inventors • Provide insight into the future of U.S. patent system

  3. Patents as a Societal Contract • A patent system is a contract between society and the inventor. • Society grants a limited monopoly • Inventor agrees to various requirements • Society agrees to impose certain constraints on the monopoly • Basic requirements • utility, • novelty, and • not obvious • The details that make up these requirements are what make patent law so challenging to patent practitioners and so maddening to inventors

  4. The Common Fear

  5. Utility • Likely the most important requirement • From an engineering perspective, the easiest to define. • Unfortunately, the legal standard is not as forthcoming. • “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  6. Novelty • Readily understood from an engineering and legal standpoint: • the invention must not have been available before. • “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent….” • Again, we must consult the case law to fully define the terms • This portion of the patent law gives the first person to conceive of an invention the sole right to patent the invention.

  7. Novelty (con’t) • This first to invent system requires complete documentation of activities. • Inventor’s notebook. • Bound with printed page numbers • Maintained in a methodical and consistent manner • Can be used to antedate a prior art reference. • To “hold on to your wallet” is to have everyone involved properly maintain their inventive activity in a properly maintained notebook. • See Gerald McClain, “Inventor's Logbook: 16 Suggestions for Keeping a Proper Logbook,” available at http://www.library.okstate.edu//patents/logbook.htm (visited Jan. 10, 2006).

  8. Time Bars • Inventors can also self-inflict an injury via “time bars” in the contract with society. •  The societal contract allows the inventor to publish or to offer the invention for sale • One major restriction. Within a year of the publication, offer for sale, or sale the inventor must file an application for patent with the patent office • So self-awareness and vigilance are necessary - the one year clock can also be started by the publication of a total stranger

  9. Obviousness • Another portion of the contract between the inventor and society is that the inventor’s device not be obvious. • “A patent may not be obtained … if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art ….

  10. Obviousness (con’t) • Analysis done in a series of smaller sub-analyses. • Conjuring of a “person having ordinary skill in the art.” PHOSITA • Assembly of all relevant prior art • Would it have been obvious to the PHOSITA to assemble all of these pieces from the prior art to make this invention? If yes, then the subject invention is obviousness and does not warrant a patent. • So what does this rather muddy area of patent law tell participants in entrepreneurship programs? • Date of invention is a critical • When considering whether to pursue patenting, the inventor must look objectively at the invention relative to other prior art. • If the invention appears to be on the verge of commercial success, the risk of not having a patent protecting the idea may outweigh the cost of obtaining patent protection.

  11. Licensing Practices • Form Agreements Are Not the Right Place to Start • Start Up Entrepreneurs • Require Customized Agreements. • Exclusive Rights to specific Fields of Use. • Take into account the entire breadth of use of the technology • Industry Entrepreneurs • Again, Customized Agreements • Take into account Superior Expertise in the Marketplace of the Industry Entrepreneur

  12. Future Developments • The U.S. patent system is currently a “first-to-invent” system of patenting. • Most countries have adopted a “first-to-file” system requiring absolute novelty. • Currently pending legislation could fundamentally change the U.S. patent system. • Legislation would move the U.S. from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system.

  13. Future Developments • The first-to-file system can be a significant hardship to entrepreneurship programs • Aid to small businesses will be more difficult. • E-programs will have to be exceedingly vigilant in filing a patent applications • Patenting costs will likely rise (?) • Outside entities will be reluctant to enter into relationships with university entrepreneurship programs unless patent protection is established before substantive work is performed. • Universities, with the variety of student, staff and faculty colleague pose significant intellectual property security risks. Patent Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 2795, 109th Cong. (2005). See also Bethany Halford, First to File, PRISM, Nov. 2005, available at http://www.prism-magazine.org/nov05/feature_first.cfm (visited Jan. 15, 2006).

  14. IP Office Best Practices • See Am. Soc’y. Eng’g. Educ., Intellectual Property: Universities, Corporations and Finding a Common Ground, Feb. 13, 2006, at http://www.asee.org/members/organizations/councils/edc.cfm (visited Mar. 6, 2006). • Overall message from this white paper is that expectations must be better managed. • Faculty must realize that federal and state statutes mandate certain practices • Administrators must recognize that for faculty and students involved in entrepreneurship programs time is of the essence • Outside partners must recognize that the university serves many masters including state and federal regulators. • All involved must recognize that the odds of an invention “hitting a homerun” are small. • Strengthen the role of IP offices as a partner in not primarily seeking licensing revenue, but in expanding the opportunities for research by more realistically negotiating with outside partners.

  15. Conclusions • Patent protection is a powerful ally to inventors • Basics of patent law must be understood and followed. • Society will only allow a patent if the invention is novel and not obvious • Role of university intellectual property offices must be kept in focus, and optimizing the program goodwill should be emphasized

More Related