Should an Inventor Prototype or Patent First?  Brooks Acordia Intellectual Property Attorney Gives His View | Law Firm Newswire

Should an Inventor Prototype or Patent First? Brooks Acordia Intellectual Property Attorney Gives His View

Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) February 20, 2014 - Inventors often struggle to decide whether to develop a prototype of their invention before filing a patent application.

Inventors are not required to create a working prototype of their invention before filing a patent application. A local patent attorney says that no one solution is right for every inventor.

“There are advantages and disadvantages to prototyping,” said Los Angeles intellectual property attorney Jim Dawson. “If the inventor intends to license their patent rights, a prototype can represent an unnecessary expense. Licensees often wish to implement changes to the original design and have no use for a prototype. However, a working prototype can be very useful in marketing the invention.”

A patent application must describe the invention in sufficient detail to allow a person of “ordinary skill” in that invention’s technology area to make and use it. If the inventor is unable to describe the invention in such a way, further research and development will be required, which might best be accomplished by prototyping.

During the prototyping process, it is very common for the inventor to change details about the invention and to improve its design.

If an inventor chooses to file an application before developing a prototype — or to forgo prototyping entirely — and new features or improvements of the invention emerge during the process, a second patent application covering the new features or improvements may be warranted. A patent attorney can help inventors decide, from an intellectual property standpoint, whether to file a second application. An inventor must also consider whether an additional patent is worth its cost from a business standpoint.

If an inventor develops a prototype before filing an application, it can help to ensure that the patent application captures the fully developed invention at its most complete. Because it is important that the original inventor own the entire developed invention, a development agreement should be used to assign all IP rights in the prototyping work to the original inventor.

“It is also a good idea to file a provisional patent application as soon as possible,” added Dawson. “This ensures an earlier priority date for the core invention, which is very important in the post-America Invents Act (AIA) “first to file” system.”

The (AIA), signed into law in 2011, changed U.S. patent law to award patents to the first inventor to file an application (as opposed to the first to invent). Provisional patent applications have low fees and do not require a particular format.

Brooks Acordia IP Law, P.C.
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. #108
Simi Valley, CA 93065-2827
Phone: (805) 579-2500
Fax: (805) 584-6427

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

  • New Guidance On What Is Patentable by the USPTO
    Since the Alice decision, there has been a lot of confusion about what is patentable – especially for life science and software related patents. At the beginning of 2019, the USPTO has issued new guidelines for determining patetability. These new guidelines set forth that non-patentable subject matter, or “judicial exceptions”, include abstract ideas such as “mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.” Additionally, it also includes “laws of nature and natural phenomena.” It further goes on to say ...
  • Grace period and on sale bar related to “secret” sales
    In a Supreme Court decision which was unanimous and authored by Justice Thomas, the Court reiterated the significance of offering a product for sale and how it affects the patent eligibility of the product. In Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharma USA (Supreme Court 2019) the Court was asked to look at the enacted AIA and whether “secret” sales continue to qualify as prior art under the revised Section 102.  The court examined the provision that “an inventor’s sale of an invention to a ...
  • Trademark and Trade-dress Laws
    Christian Louboutin’s signature red-soled heels are universally known as the ultimate signs of luxury in the shoe fashion world. However, despite their fame, the question arises of whether Louboutin can trademark his red soles as exclusively his own.<br />
    Louboutin has attempted to obtain trademarks in several countries, and the verdicts are varied. In Switzerland, for example, Louboutin was denied trademark protection because the court ruled that the red sole was not of distinctive character. However, Louboutin has successfully obtained trademarks ...

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required