Transcript Slide 1
Intellectual Property Rights Presentation
Rıfat Yenidünya 19.04.2012
CV
Personal Data
Name : Rifat Yenidunya
Work Experience
2002 – 2010 Patent Examiner, European Patent Office Munich-Germany 1995 – 2002 Istanbul University, 1994 – 1995 Kalekalıp, Eurostinger Project and Member of Turkish Industry Delegation in West European Armament Group, subgroup plane landing systems
Education
1997 – 2001 Ph.D in Solid State Physics Istanbul University 1999 – 2000 Tubitak Scholar at University of Essex, UK 1994 – 1998 M.Sc in Electronics Engineering İstanbul University 1992 – 1994 DAAD Scholar TU Munich 1986 – 1990 B.Sc in Electronics and Telecommunication Eng. İTU 1979 1986 İstanbul Lisesi
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved 1.05.2020
4
İÇERİK 1. Patentability 2. Patent Process 3. Patent Philosophies: US
vs.
3.1 First to Invent vs. First to File 3.2 In Continuation Application 3.3 Differences in Claims
EPO 4. Unity of Invention
4.1 Number of Independent Claims 4.2 Exceptions
5. Ranges 6. Recent Changes in US Patent Law
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved 1.05.2020
5
Patentability
Patent,
is the right of inventor to produce, use, sell and import the product for a certain period of time. The document referred to this right is Patent Rergistration Certificate.
Not Patentable Inventions and Subjects Criterias
Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods.
Mind, plan for the commercial and game activities, procedures and guidelines.
Literary and artistic works, scientific works, creations with aesthetic nature.
Procedures that are not related to technical aspects regarding information collection, organization, presentaiton and transmissin.
Diagnosis, treatment and surgical procedures applying human and animal body
(Bu usullerin herhangi birinde kullanılan terkip ve maddeler ile bunların üretim usulleri hariç.)
Inventions whose subject is contrary to public order or public morality Bitki veya hayvan türleri veya önemli ölçüde biyolojik esaslara dayanan bitki veya hayvan yetiştirilmesi usulleri
Novel & Involve Inventive Step:
The subject matter of the application is not disclosed elsewhere ( novelty ) or can not be achieved just by combination of existing documents ( inventive step ) in the field.
Exceeding state of the art: The persob skilled in the art can not achive the subject matter of the application using his skills and open literature.
.
Applicability to industry:
Instead of being purely hypothetical having features that can be applied in practice 1.05.2020
6 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
Patent Process
Non Disclosure Agreement, Invention Disclosure Form (IDF), Memo. of Understanding IDF verification 1 day Prior art search 5 days Patent Analysis Report Not worth to file Worth to File Project Assesment After decision is taken 1-2 week Description ı
Trade Secret
Know-how Protection is not legally binding Government subsidizing mainy TUBITAK grant Representative costs Legal fees after registration *Protection is registered, *low inventive step, *low cost *no search no examination *10 year protection Protection type, national, local , İnternational UTILITY MODEL 15 M PUBLICATION 3 M
UTILITY MODEL
~5 Year * Protection is registered *High inventive step, *high cost *20 years protection PATENT PATENT appl.
TÜBİTAK grant appl.
15 M Search report 3 M Publication ı 6 M 6 months (reply) Examination report 2-3 Year (on examiner desk) Within 12 months from first filing priority can be claimed in international filings!
PATENT PATENT
1.05.2020
7 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
Patent Approach: US vs. EPO US vs EPO BEFORE MARCH 16
First To Invent First To File In Continuation Application US
• Even in the late at night, ideas can be stamped in the pharmacies and transmit to the patent office next day morning
EPO
• Situation in the US is not accepted on EPO. For the approval of the idea it’s necessary to wait until next day
13.11.2010
USA EPO 01.12.2012
13.11.2011
Differences In Claims US
• Generally inventions tries to be protected by multiple independent claims.
In EPO this situaiton is confronted with the objection of LACK OF UNITY.
EPO
• An invention must be protected by 1 independent claim 1.05.2020
8 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
Unity of Invention I.
Number of Independent Claims: US vs EPO
Independent Claim:
Involves the description of invention’s main features
Dependent Claim:
involves all the features of affiliated claim specifies additional properties which needs protection in the beginning it refers to independent claim Number of independent claims in
EPO
applications:
1
However, there can be
2
independent claims:
1
for device and
1
for method. If one invention is complementary by another, there can be more than one independent claim.
Ex:
Plug-Socket There can be more than one independent claim in
US
applications 1.05.2020
9 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
Unity of Invention II. Exceptions
US:
In the case of 2 different parties applying the same patent, one who started laboratory works first takes priority.
EPO:
In the case of 2 different parties applying the same patent, one who applied first takes priority. If application date is same, one who started laboratory works first takes priority.
1.05.2020
10 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
T1
Ranges I.
One Component – Ex: Temperature
New Patent Application T1 Patent Founded By Examiner T2 T4 T2 T3 T1 New Patent Application T1 T3 T5 T6 T4 Patent Founded By Examiner T2 T2 T3 T4
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved 1.05.2020
11
Ranges II. Two Components – Ex: Temperature + Pressure
T P T1 T3 P1 T4 T2 P2 T P T1 T3 P1 P3 T4 T2 P4 P2
In the two components case, if one of the components remains constant examiner can make contrary comments with alternative patent.
However, if both of the components are variables examiner may have difficulties to find alternative patent.
1.05.2020
12 İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved
RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
In this scenario, inventor A would be entitled to receive the patent on her widget even though inventor A filed her patent application after inventor B. Inventor A may need to “swear behind” inventor B’s patent application by showing documentation regarding her earlier invention date of the widget, and that she diligently worked to actually or constructively “reduce the invention to practice” (constructive reduction to practice can be shown by preparing and filing the patent application). Under the first-to-invent system, inventor B would not receive a patent on the invention.
1.05.2020
13
RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
First to file principle is being applied in USA since March 16 2013 In this scenario, Inventor B would receive the patent, even though inventor A came up with the invention for the widget first. Inventor A would therefore be prohibited from practicing the invention patented by inventor B even though he came up with the invention before Inventor B did.
1.05.2020
14
RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
In this modified scenario, Inventor A would be entitled to the patent even though Inventor B filed his patent application first because Inventor A disclosed the invention before Inventor B filed his patent application. Therefore, because Inventor A filed the patent application within one year of his public disclosure, Inventor A will be entitled to receive the patent. Inventor B would therefore be prohibited from practicing the invention patented by Inventor A.
In USA still one year grace period, but not in many other countries including EPO countries. Therefore disclosure on Feb 7 is a problem for inventor A on EPO and if inventor B files on Feb. between 1 and 7 in EPO he can have a patent in EPO.
1.05.2020
15
Q & A
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved 1.05.2020
16