Misusing provisional patent applications
Provisional patent applications have a legitimate purpose to provide a place holder when you have no time to properly prepare a full utility application.
December 03, 2013 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
How did the use of provisional applications go awry? They were never intended to be, and are not, a substitute for a fully-prepared (i.e., utility) patent application. A provisional application is not a poor man's patent, which it has been called, especially since it is not a patent, can never mature into a patent and confers no enforceable rights. Provisional applications were created with good intentions and yield valuable benefits when used properly, but they have been misused — unintentionally by the unknowledgeable and intentionally by hucksters in search of a buck.
Provisional applications are not low-cost substitutes for utility applications
Provisional applications are often improperly used as low-cost substitutes for utility applications. The problem with this “cost savings” approach is that a down-and-dirty provisional application, often with few drawings, limited written description and few or no claims, creates what some refer to as a false sense of security because the provisional application's owner assumes the invention is protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. A provisional application only serves its purpose if it includes sufficient detail to fully (a) protect the invention against disclosure to others, and (b) support any U.S. utility application and/or foreign application claiming priority to the provisional application. A sketchy provisional application does neither.
With this false sense of security, the inventor may talk openly about the invention and even show the provisional application to others. What the inventor fails to realize is that anything not described in the provisional application is fair game for others to copy; disclosing information not described in the provisional application can lead to the loss of patent rights and a sketchy provisional is hardly going to impress potential investors. On the contrary, not only will a sketchy provisional application carry little weight with investors, it reflects poorly on your entire business plan and personal level of sophistication. If your business's intellectual property is half-heartedly protected with little thought or care, investors may assume other aspects of your business have been treated in the same fashion.
The true purpose of provisional applications
Provisional applications were introduced in the U.S. on June 8, 1995 with one primary purpose: To preserve at least some ability to obtain patent rights if you have a looming deadline, have no time to prepare a proper utility application and require an informal mechanism to file something quickly, scraping together as much information as time allows. A provisional application is a one-year place holder, providing no rights other than the ability to claim priority to its filing date. If time is not a factor, a provisional application should be prepared with the same care and detail as a standard utility application.
If a provisional application is properly prepared, it can also be used strategically to provide the following benefits:
- Phase shifting, which means the term of any resulting patent is measured from the utility application filing date and not the provisional application filing date. In essence, the term of your patent can extend for up to one additional year, or twenty-one years from its provisional filing date.
- U.S. prosecution costs are incurred later, or not at all, because the U.S. utility application can be filed up to a year after the filing of the provisional application. During the one-year provisional application period you can determine if the invention is worth the added costs of pursuing a utility application.
Conclusion
Provisional patent applications have a legitimate purpose — to provide a place holder when you have no time to properly prepare a full utility application. More sophisticated practitioners also know how to use provisional application procedures to phase shift and defer prosecution costs. Skimpy provisional applications used to save a buck in the short run are a waste of time and money. Either do it right or do not do it at all.
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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readEx-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
Trending Stories
- 1Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 2Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
- 3'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
- 4Supreme Court Takes Up the Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Litigation and Potential Next Steps
- 5Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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