Isn’t prior art irrelevant under the new “first to file” rules?
Is this a recent change? I thought the USPTO uses a first-inventor-to-file system with all the funny fall-out such a system generates and not - like most other patent offices - a strict FTF.
Yeah, the USPTO recently changed to conform to the European practice which is first to file. I think the prior art can still invalidate a patent, but it can’t be used to claim a patent which somebody has already filed for.
I’m not an expert in this field, but as I understand it, the US used to award patents on a first-to-invent basis. Recently (last few years) they have changed to a first-to-file basis. As I understand it, this makes prior art mostly irrelevant.
My hope is that someone with a greater level of understanding than mine will comment here confirming or correcting this.
Don’t all irrational numbers already contain all of these…and everything else?
from the site:
"-Even with the change to the first-to-file system in the USA, the patent applicant still needs to prove they are the original inventor, which would not be true for any inventions published here."
No, it doesn’t. Arguably it is almost the opposite.
The basic first-to-file system is that if there is prior art, then the patent can’t be granted. If there isn’t then it can, no matter who invented it originally.
Yes, but only if you file. If you just create prior art then (presumably) someone else can file on it.
No, they can’t because then it is no longer novel. The point of first-to-file is just that inventions are treated as original if nobody filed or published before, ignoring what may have happened behind closed doors.
I see. That clarifies things for me.
So if one were to invent something they intended to patent, they should publish ahead of filing, so as to prevent another inventor from filing ahead of them?
That’s where it gets tricky and you have to read the fine print for your jurisdiction because in principle your own prior art can count against your application, too.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation of the new system!
Wouldn’t it be easier just to create a simulation of a world supporting the development intelligent life, then let the resulting beings invent everything…unless…
These samples disclose inventions that are so specifically described as to be easily circumvented.
Unfortunately the burden is still on the court system to disprove illegitimate patents.
We really need a burden of proof for those who file, though I’m unsure how that would be achieved.
Perhaps go back to patenting actual inventions rather than ideas?
Ah, but is it the right order of infinity?
I would like to see far more ex parte reexaminations. You could even have a crowd sourced system to identify good targets.
Patents are countable; in fact, text strings are also countable, and patents are a subset.
Ah, but doesn’t it turn out that part of the well-orderedness requires them being first filed before being counted?
