Patent Novelty

Determining Whether a Life Sciences Innovation is "New"

In order for an invention to be patentable, it must be new. But the term "new" has a particular meaning under U.S. patent law as it was revised in 2011. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) the subject matter was publicly disclosed (verbal or written publications, public uses, sales, and the like) anywhere in the world before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, (2) the subject matter was described in a U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Application, or PCT Patent Application designating the U.S. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Several exceptions to the law above exist. For example, a one-year grace period is provided for inventors who make the public disclosures noted above. In addition, subject matter that was directly or indirectly described by an inventor or joint inventor in a U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Application, or PCT Patent Application will not be considered to be prior art against the patent application. This is effective for patent applications that are commonly owned by two or more entities, as well as joint applicants under a Joint Research Agreement.

It does not matter when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by. Otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. In addition, the inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Torrey Pines Law Group, PC serves technology innovators with protecting intellectual property, obtaining regulatory approvals and clearances, and making deals and closing technology transactions throughout the U.S., including in major technology hubs such as San Diego, San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Jose, Silicon Valley, Boston, Cambridge, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Boulder, Orlando, the Research Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill), the Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC), Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Ann Arbor, and throughout Southern California in Los Angeles, Orange County, Irvine, Torrey Pines, Sorrento Valley, and La Jolla.

We have experience with international intellectual property, regulatory and transactional matters pending in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou China; Tokyo, Japan; Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt Germany; Tel Aviv Israel; Mumbai, Bengaluru, and New Delhi India; London and Edinburgh United Kingdom; Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Montreal Canada; Dublin, Ireland; Cape Town, South Africa; Mexico City and Tijuana Mexico; Brussels, Belgium; Copenhagen, Denmark; Paris, France; Madrid and Barcelona Spain; Moscow, Russia; Santiago, Chile; Montevideo, Uruguay; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro Brazil; Seoul, South Korea; Taipei, Taiwan; Hong Kong; Hanoi, Vietnam; Bangkok, Thailand; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Milan, Italy; Singapore; Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide Australia; Auckland, New Zealand; Oslo, Norway; Stockholm, Sweden; Helsinki, Finland; Kiev, Ukraine; Budapest, Hungary; Vienna, Austria; Prague, Czechia; Geneva and Lausanne Switzerland; Bahrain; Doha, Qatar; Abu Dhabi and Dubai UAE; and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

San Diego Patent Novelty Law Firm - Orange County Patent Novelty Counsel - Los Angeles Patent Novelty Opinions - International Patent Novelty Law