FYI Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act The U.S. patent system has granted patents to the person who could substantiate that they were the “first to invent.” Fairly liberal mechanisms existed that created a “grace period” allowing inventors to receive patents from applications filed up to 12 months after public disclosure of their invention.
The recently enacted law will soon shift the U.S. patent system to a “first-to-file” system, more closely aligned to the patent practices in the rest of the world. In many foreign jurisdictions, any public disclosure prior to the filing of a patent application renders the invention unpatentable. The new patent law brings the U.S. very close to this situation. Public Disclosure May Negate Patent Rights A long-standing requirement in U.S. patent law is that inventions must be “novel,” meaning the claimed invention must be different from what has already been discovered, invented, published, sold, or previously known or used by another (referred to in patent law as “prior art”). Under the new law, this requirement will be more strictly enforced with respect to “public disclosures,” so that any information that is available to the public prior to the filing date of the application is considered prior art. What is a Public Disclosure? A “disclosure” may include written documents (e.g., manuscripts, book chapters, theses, journal articles, posters, abstracts, grant proposals, etc.), oral communications (e.g., thesis defenses, seminars, or meetings), public use of research materials and prototypes, or sale or offer for sale of research materials and prototypes. Presentations to fellow researchers and students are generally not considered “public” disclosures, as long as the session is not open to the public or to visitors from any companies or other institutions. Discussing your invention with a researcher at another university or a representative of a corporation may be considered a public disclosure, depending on what information is shared. Exceptions for Public Disclosures are Risky and Narrow While some narrow exceptions exist in the new patent law regarding public disclosures by inventors of their own work, they are complex and it is unclear how the new law will be interpreted and applied by the USPTO. These exceptions may not protect against third-party disclosures becoming prior art and, therefore, are risky to rely on. It is also possible that a person could file a patent application based largely on your public disclosure, and even if you could prove that fact, your rights in a subsequent patent application may be diminished. To preserve patent rights, researchers must act with an abundance of caution and discuss all disclosures prior to any disclosure events. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > I am no patent atty but I think the US Law changed last year from first to > disclose to first to file, or something to that effect... > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced >> explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, >> doesn’t that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? >> >> >> >> Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. >> >> >> >> That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> *As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been >>> clarified or duplicated.* >>> >>> For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and >>> mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries >>> among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. >>> >>> >>> As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) >>> from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. >>> >>> The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because >>> of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of >>> such a system over one. >>> >>> *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in >>> liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. >>> >>> >>> This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how >>> these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, >>> include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic >>> clusters in the material that he has isolated. >>> >> >> >
