IP: 6 issues for bioscience companies to consider in 2013
As 2013 approaches, some major changes to the patent system will soon take effect.
December 18, 2012 at 02:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As 2013 approaches, some major changes to the patent system will soon take effect. The U.S. patent system will effectively change from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system. This will have a significant impact on the way that patent-dependent companies, such as bioscience companies, do business. Following are six issues such companies should consider.
- Provisional applications. A provisional patent application is a placeholder patent application that does not have to include patent claims and is not examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A provisional patent application expires within one year of its filing and must be converted to a regular utility patent application. Provisional applications are quite useful for bioscience inventions, where publications or presentations can require the early filing of an application and time precludes the preparation of a regular utility application.
- Enablement. A provisional patent application can be useful for obtaining an effective filing date for a bioscience invention. To be useful, the provisional application must sufficiently describe the invention such that that the claims that are eventually filed with the utility application are supported. Applicants must take care during preparation of provisional applications to ensure the disclosure is enabling for what ultimately will be claimed. Although claims are not necessary for provisional applications, the drafting of at least one broad claim will help to focus attention on what information and data should be included in the provisional application. Also, the provisional application should provide some attention to alternative embodiments. Applicants should avoid filing narrow provisional applications with only specific test results and describing perhaps only one embodiment.
- The first-to-file impact of the AIA. The America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, implements the change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. The time from discovery to filing of a patent application will have serious consequences, as interference proceedings will no longer be available to award later filed patents to the first to invent. Instead, the patent will be awarded to the first to file.
- Disclosure programs. Prompt invention disclosure will be a key to reducing the discovery-to-filing timeline. Employees must be educated as to the importance of a prompt disclosure of inventions. Companies should review disclosure forms and procedures to encourage prompt disclosure. For example, companies should ensure that disclosure forms do not require inordinate amounts of time to complete and are easy to understand and fill out. Employee incentive programs for invention disclosures can be useful.
- Invention review procedures. Many organizations have lengthy invention disclosure procedures aimed at controlling costs by requiring approvals and sometimes multiple approvals prior to filing patent applications. A streamlined procedure that shortens the approval timeline will now be desirable.
- Application filing programs. Companies should implement filing programs that will expedite the time from disclosure to filing. Provisional applications can be filed as a prelude to a more complete, and more time-consuming, utility applications and to provide some protection prior to more lengthy invention review procedures and assignment to outside counsel for preparation of a utility application. Companies should hold outside counsel to timelines for filing patent applications promptly, and companies should instruct employee-inventors to assist counsel in meeting these timelines.
The AIA is profoundly changing the patent system. As with most statutory changes, being prepared for the changes will help to ensure that the changes work for the company rather than against it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250