Professor Yaniv Heled (GSU Law) has created the following helpful infographic of the patent prosecution process: PDF Life of a Patent Infographic (Aug. 14, 2020). (Reproduced with permission).
Only one thing is certain in the life of a patent: all roads lead to the public domain. — Dennis
Cool stuff. Just a quick question … does PTAB (after an appeal) reverse to allowance or remand it to the patent office for further examination on different grounds, which typically results in allowance, but the Office could still reject it.
Reminiscent of the “Patent’s Progress” wall poster that Intellectual Property Today magazine sold a number of years back.
Cool graphic. He left out the PR blitz, political donations, backscratching, log rolling, calls to your senator, etc, as the inputs to the PTAB.
Man o’ man . . . with posts before 5 am, looks like I need to get up even earlier to have any hope of keeping up with my good friend anon . . . 🙂
Leave it to someone who’s never done patent prosecution to set up a dichotomy between a “provisional patent application” and a “full patent application”.
Decent enough point there, AM.
While there are certainly technical differences, one would hope that the chart above would lead to a meaningful discussion on the traps of thinking that provisional patent applications are something ‘quick and dirty’ that can ‘magically’ avoid the diligent work that a non-provisional (i.e., ‘full’) application should entail. Such ‘loose’ thinking is certainly something that the public should be warned of the dangers inherent with such.
I don’t think this chart set up a “dichotomy,” just the alternative filing path, for provisional applications to become patents.
However, as noted in a earlier blog there was a strange Fed. Cir. decision that Did create an inconsistent variable difference in prior art effect for provisionals dependent on claiming.
I was more confused by the lower left side of the chart, especially the broken arrow to the “District Court for the Northern District of Virginia” before going to the Fed. Cir. since that is only an option for PTAB rejected application claims, not IPRs.
Interestingly enough, THIS (alone):
“Only one thing is certain in the life of a patent: all roads lead to the public domain. — Dennis”
Should blunt the many forms of anti-patent rhetoric (from the ‘0h no, Tr011s,’ to the ‘unfair tax’ to the ‘restraint on innovation’ so asserted by those that lack understanding of the adage of ‘Necessity is the Mother of Invention’), in that ALL of these pro-patent measures, in ALL of their reach, are but for limited times.
With this view fully appreciated, no one should be quibbling about making patents stronger — except those who have other interests than innovation (for example, Efficient Infringers; for another example, those with socio-political-philosophical views against personal property and the use of the capitalistic system for leveraging personal property).
Leave it to an academic to put the allowance in red and the removal of the patent right via post grant mechanisms in green.
“Only one thing is certain in the life of a patent: all roads lead to the public domain.” – not necessarily true. The graphic doesn’t clearly show this, but a nonpublished application that goes abandoned does not necessarily enter the public domain.
pl,
Thank you for that solid point.
A remnant for sure of the days in which the Quid Pro Quo was taken seriously.
Comments are closed.