IP: What every bioscience company needs to know about provisional applications
The upcoming changes to the U.S. patent law, and particularly the transition from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, brings with it some changes that bioscience companies should be aware of and which could adversely impact pending patent rights.
January 29, 2013 at 02:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The upcoming changes to the U.S. patent law, and particularly the transition from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, brings with it some changes that bioscience companies should be aware of and which could adversely impact pending patent rights.
Bioscience patent applications are frequently filed as provisional applications, applications which are not examined and do not need to have claims. The provisional application must be converted to a regular “utility” application within one year of the filing of the provisional application. The lack of formalities required for provisional applications has made them particularly popular with universities and bioscience companies, where pending publication and presentation deadlines sometimes require immediate filings and the desire to stay ahead of one's competitors urges immediate, if incomplete, provisional filings. Indeed, a “cover sheet” provisional can be filed and is so named because the inventor's manuscript or data are filed without substantial change. The practice has always been fraught with danger; however, the coming changes to U.S. patent law render the practice even more dangerous and may suggest a more immediate conversion to a complete utility application and a review of pending provisional applications prior to the first-to-file transition.
A provisional application may provide an effective priority date for all claims in a utility application (U.S. or Patent Cooperation Treaty) filed on or after March 16, 2013, only if the provisional application provides support for all claims of the utility application under 35 U.S.C. 112 (112 support). This section of the law requires that patent applicants fully disclose and support their claims to an invention. Although the requirements are relatively unchanged from the previous law, other proposed changes in the rules of practice before the U.S. Patent Office appear to indicate that a more careful examination of this priority claim will now be required and that the ability to rely on the priority of some types of provisional applications will be narrowed. Further, depending on such priority, the examination rules for an application may vary. In particular, an application may be examined under the potentially stricter first-to-file rules instead of the older first-to-invent rules.
The practical effect of the proposed rule changes is that the filing of a “cover sheet” provisional application consisting of a publication, presentation or the like may no longer provide an enforceable priority date for claims in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, if Section 112 support is absent from the provisional application. In the case of a currently pending provisional application, a lack of 112 support may prevent a subsequent application from taking advantage of rules allowing examination under the old first-to-invent rules. As a result of such changes, applicants should consider:
- Whether the filing and preparation of a utility, or at least a well-developed provisional, to preserve the earliest priority date possible is advisable
- Whether such a filing should be completed prior to March 16, 2013.
Provisional applications and even “cover sheet” provisional applications will continue to be useful in the future to provide some protection for imminent disclosures or subsequent developments, as these applications protect such disclosures from being cited as prior art in subsequent applications. However, it is worth considering following up the filing of such a “cover sheet” application with another application with 112 support for all potential embodiments as soon as possible to eliminate the potential of third-party prior art and/or to allow examination under the old first-to-invent rules. The bioscience applicant must, as always, remain abreast of legal changes in a rapidly changing legal landscape.
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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'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