You dedicated What to the public?

IP entrepreneurs frequently run afoul of the one year bar, which dedicates perhaps a valuable invention, to the public. How does this occur? Section 102(b) of the Patent Act provides, all other conditions satisfied, as follows:

• A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ...(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, ...

This is the one year bar. Sometimes, because of the “on sale” provision, it is referred to as the On-Sale Bar. There are two parts, first, the invention must be “ready for patenting”, i.e., the invention is at the stage where a patent application could be filed. Second, it must either be (a) described in a printed publication, (b) put in public use, or (c) put on sale. These are all gray areas and if you have to look closely at them, you might already be in trouble. The safest course is to keep the invention confidential until you are ready to go to market. At that stage, file a patent application, get the “patent pending” status, and go to market. Not vice versa.

How does anyone know? Can you just keep your barring public use or barring sale secret and still get a patent? There are two aspects to this, legal and moral. The entrepreneur needs to make the moral decision for themselves.

The legal aspect is straightforward. When you file a patent application, you sign a declaration, under Federal law (thus, willful violation of which could be a Federal crime), that you know and understand your duty to disclose all information material to patentability to the Patent Office. When you don’t do so, it is called inequitable conduct. If the Patent Office finds out, it can bar your patent. If a patent issues and a competitor finds out, it can invalidate your patent and open you up to liability for bad faith patent enforcement. Every year patents are invalidated based on inequitable conduct for failure to disclose. It is not a situation you want to be in, especially since there is an easy way to avoid the problem -- apply for patent first, and then market the product. Otherwise, you could end up dedicating your invention to the public.

Note, some countries/regions don't allow a one year grace period at all. An IP entrepreneur that considers international protection will want to check the countries he or she is interested in before doing an act that starts the clock ticking. There may be less time than the one year allowed in the US, or no time at all.

Spell it Out

Sometimes it is tempting to sell, or attempt to sell, an invention without filing a patent application for it. This can be budget wise and economical. But it is also very dangerous. The Washington case in Oliver v. Flow International, 137 Wash. App. 655, 155 P.3d 140 (2006), exemplifies some of these dangers. Oliver sold his invention to Flow for $150,000 plus royalties. Flow never filed any patent application on the invention and never sold any products under the invention, and consequently there were no royalties. Oliver sued for failure to commercialize the invention and file patent applications on the invention which duties he claimed were implied by the contract and the reason for the royalty language. The Washington court ruled that there was no such language in the contract, and the court would not imply that duty. Thus, Oliver lost. Not discussed was that due to the one year “on sale” bar of patent law, because Flow never filed a patent application, the invention became dedicated to the public. The bottom line, if you want the contracting party to have a duty, such as to commercialize or seek a patent, you need to spell it out. Oliver could have included language that Flow was required to make verifiable concrete efforts to commercialize the invention. Oliver could have included language spelling out who had obligation to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain them. Olive could have required milestones relating to commercializations and sales such that if the milestones weren't being met the invention reverted back. But, as the case shows, if it isn't spelled out, it might not be enforceable.