A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention. More specifically, it is a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. In Australia, if you are an inventor or a person entitled to be assigned the invention, you can apply to register a device, substance, method or process that is new and inventive under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). If you register a patent under this legislation, you can stop anyone else from using that invention without your permission for a number of years. Show
How can Sajen Legal help you with your patents?At Sajen Legal, we often help our clients protect their inventions by:
We can also help you in situations where you wish to license your patent. Our litigation team can assist you if believe your patent has been infringed. See Intellectual Property Disputes. Finally, we can advise you on whether your current or proposed business activities infringe upon patents owned by other people, or defend you if you are sued by another party for breach of one of their patents. Do you need assistance with patents? Would you like to talk to a lawyer who understands the patenting application process in Australia? Would you like to know more about our fixed-fee arrangements? Call us now on 1800 640 509.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application. This micro-course explores all concepts mentioned here, including how exclusive rights function in national and international contexts, the technical information needed in the application process, and how you can find and comprehend this technical information once it’s disclosed. But what qualifies as a “product or process,” and what is meant by “a new way of doing something” or “a new technical solution to a problem”? These ideas vary slightly internationally, but, in the U.S., this effectively includes:
“Processes” also refers to innovative uses of existing inventions, which some patent experts consider an additional, distinct category. Taken individually or in combination with each other, these categories function as a general, but comprehensive, list of patent-protectable matter. Patent applicants do not need to specify a category, however, as overlap is expected. In the U.S., patents can also protect asexually reproducing plants (protectable with plant patents) and non-functional, ornamental designs (protectable with design patents). Most other countries and regions protect these forms of intellectual property by means other than patents. Non-patentable innovationsBased on the description above, it may seem that you can patent just about anything, but many creative works are categorically unpatentable. Some are protectable through other forms of intellectual property. For instance, creative works expressed through writing, music, or art are protectable by copyright, and words and symbols that indicate a good or service in the marketplace are protectable by trademark. To learn more about these types of intellectual property, refer to the Introduction to Intellectual Property micro-course. In addition, many patent offices deem some specific inventions and discoveries patent ineligible. For instance, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) will not grant patents to:
Patent examiners also thoroughly review applications for additional qualities, including utility, novelty, and non-obviousness, explained in the Specific Criteria section below. 1.2 Patent Protection in PracticeA common misunderstanding about patents is that they provide patent owners the right to produce and market their inventions. There is, in fact, no legal requirement that a product be patented for it to be marketed. Many inventors and entrepreneurs do not or cannot protect their intellectual property for various reasons, including:
Patents are effectively an exchange between an individual or business and a patent-granting body.
This exchange encourages innovation in both the short-term—by providing inventors and entrepreneurs of today with a period of time in which they can commercialize their inventions without fear of being copied—and the long-term—by providing inventors and entrepreneurs of tomorrow with detailed information they can use to improve upon past innovations. There are also limitations to the protection offered:
1.3 Types of U.S. PatentsUtility PatentsThe most commonly-granted patents in the U.S. are utility patents, which cover "new, useful, and nonobvious process[es], machine[s], article[s] of manufacture, or composition[s] of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." In the U.S., utility patents protect inventions for a maximum of 20 years from filing date, pending maintenance fees due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after the patent is granted. In many countries, patent protection is available only for inventions that would fall under the category of utility patent in the U.S.--in these countries, a “utility patent” would simply be a “patent.” In the U.S., however, “utility” distinguishes these patents from plant patents and design patents. Types of utility patents include: Select an image to view it full screen or select the caption to read the patent. Plant PatentsPlant patents protect asexually reproducing plants, excluding edible tubers and plants found in an uncultivated state. Some plants or aspects of plants not covered by plant patents are protectable by utility patents, and through the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), which protects seeds and tubers. Plant patents are unique to the U.S., with other countries offering intellectual property protection for plants through other legal means. Plant patents provide 20 years of protection from the filing date, with no maintenance fees required. Types of patentable plants include: Select an image to view it full screen or select the caption to read the patent. Design PatentsDesign patents protect ornamental designs. This includes non-functional elements of an invention for which the functional elements are protected by utility patents (e.g., an attractive outer casing for a new model of phone) or non-functional designs for which there is no related utility patent (e.g., a distinctive-looking pair of normally-functioning shoes). Design patents function as an industrial design right in the U.S. In most countries, industrial design rights are not protected under patent law, but through other legal means. Effective May 13, 2015, U.S. design patents provide 15 years of protection from filing date, with no maintenance fees required (design patents granted prior to that date provide 14 years of protection from filing date). Types of patentable designs include: This micro-course focuses primarily on utility patents, but highlights important differences for plant patents and design patents where applicable. 1.4 Specific Criteria Required for Patenting an InventionAs mentioned above, patent examiners review patent applications to confirm that the inventions fit in the broad categories of processes, machines, manufactures, and articles of matter. They also check for three additional requirements specified in U.S. Code 35, which governs U.S. patent law:
UsefulnessUsefulness is often the easiest criterion for patent applicants to satisfy. Basically, for an invention to be patentable, it needs to work. Patent examiners do not assess patent applications for level of helpfulness; inventors have successfully patented inventions as seemingly non-useful as a finger-mounted flyswatter, a method and equipment for making a light-up snow person, and a “self-congratulatory” back-patting device. Usefulness is a requirement in the U.S. for both utility and plant patents, but not for design patents, which are issued for ornamental, non-functional innovations only.
35 U.S.C. § 101 mentions usefulness as a general criterion for patent protection: 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. [emphasis added] Section 2107 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) elaborates on what ‘usefulness’ means, indicating that ‘useful’ inventions must possess:
NoveltyThe “novelty” and "non-obviousness" requirements both, hinge on the existence of “prior art.” “Prior art” is one of the most important concepts in patent law. It refers to all publicly available information that anticipates, in part or full, the invention. What is considered “prior art” varies slightly based on country or region; however, “prior art” generally includes:
Patent examiners use all available prior art to determine an invention’s novelty. An invention’s novelty may manifest in its physical differences (such as the addition, modification, or subtraction of a component), new combinations of existing parts, or new use. Most successful patent applicants search for and reference prior art in their applications so that they can adequately explain why their inventions are distinct from that prior art. During the examination process, patent examiners then search for additional prior art. They then determine whether the invention is distinct from all prior art discovered by both applicant and examiner. Examiners evaluate not just on whether the prior art anticipates the invention in its entirety, but whether it anticipates any of the patent’s individual claims (the enumerated list in every patent that defines the scope of protection; claims are covered in Lesson 3).
35 U.S.C. § 102 lists the following reasons why an invention might not be patented on the grounds of novelty:
Non-obviousness“Non-obviousness” is the most challenging requirement to meet for many patent applicants. In short, the patent office may deem the invention obvious if a person with “ordinary skill” in the subject/discipline/field would conclude that the invention:
For instance, if you were trying to patent a small modification to a bicycle component, you might easily fulfill the novelty requirement by demonstrating that it is technically distinct from all similar components on the market, but unless you can credibly specify an unexpected difference this modification brings to a bike’s functionality, your patent application might be rejected for obviousness. Thus, successful patent applicants must demonstrate knowledge of prior art and also clearly explain an invention’s novelty and non-obviousness in relation to that prior art.
35 U.S.C. § 103 specifies the following as a reason why an invention might not be patented on the grounds of obviousness: 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 to which said subject matter pertains. The section also includes conditions and exceptions relating to the non-obviousness requirement for certain biotechnological processes and inventions created under joint research agreements. SpecificationUsefulness, novelty, and non-obviousness form the basis of evaluating the invention, itself for patentability; however, patent examiners review many other elements of the applications, including descriptive detail. Examiners assess whether the applicant has adequately explained the invention with enough detail that someone in the same field or discipline as the inventor would be able to recreate and use it. This supports one half of the exchange at the heart of the patent process mentioned in 1.2 of Lesson 1: the exclusive right conferred to the patent holder comes at the cost of revealing how the invention works. This level of detail makes patent documentation not just useful for those performing prior art searches for patentability, but a powerful information resource for everything from product design to historical research on technology.
Inventions must be explained “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention” (35 U.S.C. § 112). This, along with the 35 U.S.C. § 113 requirement that drawings be provided as needed, support one half of the fundamental exchange at the heart of the patent process mentioned in 1.2 of this lesson. 1.5 ActivityPage 2
Although patent application processes vary somewhat from country to country, some basic concepts inform all of these processes. This section deals primarily with the utility patent process, although processes for U.S. plant and design patents are similar. Prior art and public disclosureLesson 1 introduces the idea of “prior art” and provides examples, such as inventions disclosed in patent applications and inventions listed for sale. Prior art includes inventions disclosed by patent applicants themselves. When an inventor files a patent application, their own public disclosure can count against them. Rules surrounding an inventor’s own public disclosure vary from country to country, with some territories (including the U.S.) offering grace periods. Broadly, however, this is one area in which patents operate differently than other intellectual property rights. If you publicly disclose copyrightable content or a trademarkable symbol prior to registration with the U.S. Copyright Office or U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it might even strengthen your rights; if you publicly disclose an otherwise patentable invention before applying for a patent, this will complicate and possibly endanger your ability to patent it. Important parties and terms in the patent processPatent applications pass through many hands on their way to being granted or rejected. Here are some of the major parties involved and terms used in the process:
Time, effort, and costRegardless of whether an applicant applies only in the U.S. or internationally, the patent process can be time-consuming, difficult, and expensive. Most successful patent applications involve:
Applicants can file their applications independently or can choose to hire patent attorneys and agents (who can help with searching and analyzing the results), professional searchers (who can help with searching but legally cannot provide an analysis of the results), and patent artists (who can assist with drawings). Whether applying in the U.S. only or in multiple territories, applicants pay a series of fees to the relevant patent office(s) during the patent process, covering application, examiner searches and examination, and even specific qualities of the application (for instance, how the claims--which define the scope of the patent--are enumerated). If a patent is granted, assignees are then required to pay additional fees to maintain the rights until the patent expires.
In the U.S., fees are based on whether the applicant qualifies as an “entity,” “small entity,” or “micro-entity,” assessed based on number of employees, income, and other factors. The USPTO fee schedule details all current fees for the U.S. patent process. Note that this schedule presents fees singly; applicants will virtually never pay only a basic filing fee, but will pay, at minimum, a basic filing fee, a search fee, an examination fee, and, if the patent is granted, an issue fee. After the application is filed, the patent process can still take years due to the examination process and other factors. Timelines vary based on U.S. or international application processes, explained and illustrated below. Patentability and exclusive rights in an international contextThe international nature of patents complicates matters in that patent protection is granted on a territory-by-territory basis, but patentability requirements for novelty and non-obviousness are evaluated on an international basis; i.e., an invention’s novelty and non-obviousness are established against prior art publicly disclosed in any territory. This leads to the following common scenario:
If you successfully patent an invention with the USPTO and the JPO, you will hold the right to exclude others from producing or selling your invention in the U.S. and Japan, but will not hold the right to exclude others from producing or selling it in Germany. Due to consistent international requirements for novelty, however, no one else will be able to patent the invention in Germany. If you decide to produce and market your invention in Germany, you will be free to do so, although you may face competition from German imitators. Due to variations in policies and processes among national and regional patent offices, it would be impossible to account for all particulars in this micro-course. The sections below include a detailed overview of the U.S. patent process and information on two paths for international patent coverage available to U.S. patent applicants, with differences from the U.S. patent process highlighted.
UW-Madison university policy states: Except as required by funding agreements or other University policies, the University does not claim ownership rights in the intellectual property generated during research by its faculty, staff, or students. For the purpose of identifying funding agreements that may be tied to their inventions, faculty, staff, and students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are obligated to disclose inventions to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) for review by both WARF intellectual property managers and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education (VCRGE). This process is detailed in UW-Madison Libraries’ Introduction to Intellectual Property micro-course Lesson 3: Intellectual Property in Context. 2.2 U.S. Patent ProcessThe U.S. patent process is similar to other territories’ patent processes, but is more forgiving to applicants in some ways, particularly in terms of public disclosure. The following interactive audio timeline explains the U.S. patent process. Select each box to learn about the steps in this process. U.S. Patent TimelineOpen U.S. patent interactive timeline in a new window
As mentioned in the graphic, filing a provisional patent application allows applicants to disclose and test the market for their invention without affecting their ability to pursue a U.S. patent. They also offer the following advantages:
Although U.S. patenting policy differs somewhat from the rest of the world today, it used to differ even more substantially. In 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), an attempt to synchronize the U.S. patent system with the rest of the world, and its provisions have all taken effect as of 2013. Among many other changes, this federal statute changed the U.S. from a first-to-invent (FTI) nation (in which an inventor could claim rights to the date on which the invention was conceived under certain circumstances) to a first-inventor-to-file (FITF) nation, in which filing date is critical. To ease the transition, the AIA included the public disclosure grace period and other facets that continue to distinguish the U.S. process from those of other countries and regions, most of which have “first-to-file” (FTF) policies. There are two main options available to applicants interested in pursuing patent protection in both the U.S. and in other territories: beginning the application process through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system or applying in specific countries under the rules of the Paris Convention. The sections below provide a brief explanation of how these international processes work in concert with the U.S. system. Most international patent offices do not recognize the grace period for disclosure offered in the U.S., thus these options are generally not available to applicants who have publicly disclosed before filing. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) processBeginning in 1970, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has allowed patent applicants who plan to pursue a patent in multiple countries to begin their process with a single application submitted to a single participating country’s patent office. The U.S. is one of over 150 participating states, thus U.S. nationals and residents can begin this process by filing a PCT application with the USPTO. Like provisional patent applications, PCT applications never progress directly to a granted patent, but are a means to establish a filing date. PCT applications can be filed directly or within 12 months of an initial filing with a participating patent office. In other words, U.S. applicants who want to file via the PCT process can:
Once an applicant files a PCT application, it enters the International Phase of the process. An International Searching Authority (ISA) in one of the participating patent offices performs a prior art search and provides to the applicant an International Search Report (ISR), including a written opinion on the invention’s patentability. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publishes the PCT application and ISR 18 months after the priority date (typically the PCT application filing date or the the U.S. provisional patent application filing date, if applicable). If the ISR looks promising, the applicant can pursue the grant of the patent with the desired countries, typically beginning at 30 months after priority date. This initiates the National Phase of the process, which is subject to the rules established by the relevant patent office(s). The PCT process is more expensive than filing in a single territory, and applicants are required to pay all additional costs associated with the patent offices involved in the National Phase. For those who intend to patent their inventions in many territories, however, it offers the following advantages:
The following interactive timeline represents the PCT patent process. Select each box to read about the steps in this process. PCT Patent TimelineOpen PCT patent interactive timeline in a new window The other option for U.S. nationals and residents who seek patent protection in multiple territories is to file patent applications directly with the relevant patent offices. Applicants who plan to file only in the U.S. and in one or two additional territories may prefer this route to the PCT process. Depending on the countries involved, this might require simultaneous filings so that an application filed in the U.S. does not act as prior art for an application filed elsewhere; however, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, adopted in 1883, simplifies this considerably. Paris Convention countries (the U.S. included) recognize a set of consistent rules surrounding intellectual property, one of which is that those who have filed patent applications in a participating country have 12 months since that filing date to file in any other participating Paris Convention country. In the U.S., a provisional patent application filing counts as a first filing date, which means applicants with provisional patent applications have 12 months to file both their nonprovisional patent applications with the USPTO and patent applications in any other desired Paris Convention countries.
You want to market your device exclusively in the U.S. and, while searching online, your patent attorney discovered the following prior art that is identical to your device in every way (assume your highly experienced patent attorney found no other prior art that presents a reason for rejection on grounds of novelty): A granted U.S. patent that’s still valid
Answer: You will likely be unable to patent your device in the U.S. due to lack of novelty. You will also be unable to legally market your device in the United States without the permission of the patent owner, who owns the exclusive rights to produce and market the technology in the U.S. An application for a Japanese patent
Answer: You will likely be unable to patent your device in the U.S. due to lack of novelty, because international patents are considered prior art in the U.S. examination process. You will be able to market your device in the U.S., as the Japanese patent grants the owner the exclusive right to produce and market in Japan only. As the technology is not patent protected in the U.S., however, others--including the Japanese patent-holder--may also produce and market the device in the U.S. A granted European patent that expired in 2015
Answer: You will likely be unable to patent your device in the U.S. because expired patents, expired or otherwise, are considered prior art in the U.S. examination process. You can market your device in the U.S. and also market it elsewhere in the world, including all of Europe, as the patent protection granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) is no longer in effect. An Amazon.com page for your device that you posted three months ago (whoops!)
Answer: Due to the 12-month grace period on disclosure afforded patent applicants in the U.S. you will be able to file a patent application for your device with relative certainty that it will not be rejected on the basis of your own disclosure (although it still might be rejected during the examination process for any number of other reasons!). You will likely be unable to patent your device internationally, as most countries do not offer grace periods except under very specific circumstances. You will be able to legally market your device in the U.S. and internationally, assuming the Amazon.com page is the only potentially disqualifying prior art. Page 3
This lesson examines the anatomy of a granted patent, emphasizing its major components. The example referenced throughout is US9,914,063, a granted U.S. patent for a type of fidget spinner. (images are included below; however, you may find it helpful to download and view the linked PDF of this patent as you read through this lesson). Although the example used is a granted U.S. utility patent, this format shares much in common with nonprovisional utility patent applications and international patents. Specific patentability requirements vary among countries or regions, but the basic parts of a patent are extremely consistent. The final section of this lesson describes slight variations in U.S. plant patents and design patents. Published patent documents only include fields that are relevant for the patent, thus this example does not include all possible content, but includes most common fields. 3.2 Cover page
The first page (or “cover page”) of a patent document includes a specific set of headings and fields with identifying and descriptive information. So that all essential fields and headings can fit on this page, longer fields are sometimes continued on subsequent pages. To help standardize and overcome language and formatting differences, the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) maintains a list of INID codes, or "Internationally agreed Numbers for the Identification of (bibliographic) Data,” which most patent offices have adopted and use on the first page of each patent document. The field definitions below are preceded by these INID codes, where applicable. Note that some fields on the example do not have headings, thus the field definitions below refer to terminology used in the patent example provided (e.g., “TOY DESIGNED TO SPIN IN A USER’S HAND”).
 (12) [United States Patent] (10) Patent No. US 9,914,063 B1 US = country code (the European Patent Office maintains a list of current codes) 9,914,063 = unique identifier assigned to granted patents (published U.S. patent applications are assigned unique identifiers in a different format that begins with the year, e.g., US 2004/0213483 A1) B1 = kind code (or status code) of the patent document. Commonly-used U.S. common codes include A1 (patent application publication), B1 (granted utility patent for which no application was previously published), and B2 (utility patent for which an application was previously published). The USPTO maintains a list of current and previously used US kind codes. Some U.S. patent applications include additional letters directly preceding the unique identifier to indicate design patents (e.g., US D652,181 B2) and plant patents (e.g., US PP11,728 B2). (45) Date of Patent (54) [TOY DESIGNED TO SPIN IN A USER’S HAND] This is often not just the case for titles, but throughout patent documentation. This is critical to keep in mind when performing keyword searches in patent databases. As patent applications do not use consistent or expected terminologies, patent searchers generally need to use multiple search strategies beyond keyword searching. Search strategy is discussed in Lesson 4.
The example used throughout this lesson is for a popular model of fidget spinner that the inventor and owner has trademarked as the Torqbar®. The USPTO considers the term “fidget spinner” to be merely descriptive of a general type of device, thus it cannot be trademarked. Inventors of similar fidget spinners have patented their devices, as well, differentiating their inventions from this fidget spinner and other fidget spinners through the careful construction of their claims, but none can prevent others from using the term “fidget spinner” in marketing their devices. Some patent applicants have chosen to use the term “fidget spinner” in their patent applications since 2017, at approximately the same time that the USPTO determined that no one could own the trademark for “fidget spinner” for these devices. These patent applicants could be confident that they would not be using a trademarked term in their application materials. (71) Applicant (72) Inventor (73) Assignee (*) Notice (21) App. No. (22) Filed Related U.S. Application Data (51) Int. Cl. (52) U.S. Cl. Bolded CPC classes in this field represent the “inventive” aspects of the patented invention (i.e., these are the classes most associated with the novel, non-obvious qualities protected, while the non-bold classes may be associated with more general qualities of the patented invention). (58) Field of Classification Search (56) References Cited Primary Examiner (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm (57) Abstract [14 Claims, 4 Drawing Sheets] 3.3 Drawing Sheets
The drawing sheets include visual matter associated with the patent, generally black and white drawings provided by the applicant in India ink. The USPTO has precise requirements for formatting, sizing, and other details for applicants. One important guideline to keep in mind while searching and reading patent documents is that the drawings must depict all features specified in the claims (defined below).
3.4 Description
The majority of most patent documents is dedicated to the specification, which consists of a description and the claims. Below are some of the most common sections of the description. Related applications Background Summary Description of Drawings Detailed Description 3.5 Claims
The second part of the specification section contains the patent claims. This section is sometimes difficult to find in the original patent document, as it continues directly from the last part of the description and is not set off by a new heading. The claims section begins with a phrase such as “what is claimed is” and enumerates the scope of the patent protection in minute, legalistic detail. Despite their being hard to spot in the published document, the claims are the most important part of the patent in terms of rights afforded to the patent holder. Claims set the scope of the patent protection. Potential infringement is evaluated in light of whether an invention has all the elements of a single claim or if it has overall similarity to the description in the claims. Most claims sections contain a mix of independent and dependent claims. This distinction between types of claims provides applicants the ability to further elaborate on specific claims without needing to restate in detail. For instance, in the fidget spinner example, claim 1 introduces a very specific idea:
A device designed to spin in a user's hands, the device comprising: a planar body with a centrally mounted ball bearing positioned within a center orifice of the planar body, wherein an outer race of the ball bearing is attached to the planar body; a button comprising a pair of bearing caps attached to one another through the ball bearing and clamped against an inner race of the ball bearing, such that when the button is held between a user's thumb and finger, the planar body freely rotates about the ball bearing; and a plurality of weights distributed at opposite ends of the planar body, creating at least a bipolar weight distribution. Claim 2 assumes all of the qualities of claim 1, while further specifying: The device of claim 1, wherein the planar body has a rounded hour glass shape with a bipolar weight distribution. During infringement cases, dependent claims are evaluated in light of their corresponding independent claims; the independent claim must be infringed upon for the dependent claim to be infringed upon (e.g., random devices with rounded, hour-glass-shaped planar bodies and bipolar weight distribution are not infringing; an infringing device would also have to be designed to spin a user’s hand, along with all of the other qualities described in claim 1). 3.6 Variations in Plant and Design Patent DocumentsU.S. plant and design patent documents share many fields and sections with utility patent documents, but there are important differences. This section highlights a few. Plant patents Click to view an example of a plant patent
In addition to changes made to differentiate from utility patents (e.g., the document type in INID field 12 is modified from “United States Patent” to “U.S. Plant Patent”), plant patents have some of the following unusual features.
Design patents Click to view an example of a design patent
As with plant patents, U.S. design patent documents share most fields with utility patent documents, but differ in some important ways.
Match the part of the patent with a statement that applies to it:
Always the name of an individual person = Inventor Can change after the patent issues, but will never be updated on the patent documentation = Assignee The main part of the patent used to determine infringement = Claims Often includes a description of drawings section = Description. Date on which the patent was published = Date of Patent. The priority date of the patent (under most circumstances) = Filed aka "Filing Date".
© Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System |
Is an exclusive right granted for an invention which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
