Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130209
 
 

Footnotes (48)



 


 



Priority and Novelty under the AIA


Robert P. Merges


University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

September 25, 2012

UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2130209

Abstract:     
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) radically transforms some of the most basic rules in the U.S. patent system. For many inventors and patent owners the most important changes center on priority and novelty. Practitioners working under the new rules will need to understand three basic issues to be most helpful to their clients. These are: (1) the critical date for most purposes is now the date that a patent application is first filed; (2) the prior art relevant to a given patent claim now consists of all references available under the statute prior to the filing date; and (3) priority contests between rival claimants to an invention will now be determined almost exclusively by looking to when each of the rivals filed their patent application. The discussion that follows elaborates a bit on these basic principles, and describes in general terms how they compare to the basic operating rules that pertain to the old, 1952 Act, system of priority and novelty.

I begin with a brief explanation of the overall structure of the AIA’s novelty provisions. I then consider the related yet distinct concepts of novelty and priority, and explain how the AIA changes the basic parameters of both these fundamental issues. I pay particular attention to two new statutory issues -- the definition of “disclosure” and the creation of a “grace period” within which inventors can file a patent application. I explain a number of detailed aspects of the new rules, including: (1) why “disclosure” should be read as a general reference to all prior art references; (2) why this means that existing case law under the 1952 on public use and on sale activities continues in effect under the AIA (i.e., why the AIA does not overrule cases such as Metallizing Engineering); and (3) how to interpret the phrase “publicly disclosed” in the grace period part of the new statute, as distinct from “disclosure” generally. I conclude with some observations, sparked by the AIA, on continuity and change in the patent system.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 16, 2012 ; Last revised: March 12, 2013

Suggested Citation

Merges, Robert P., Priority and Novelty under the AIA (September 25, 2012). UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2130209. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130209 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2130209

Contact Information

Robert P. Merges (Contact Author)
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law ( email )
Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States
510-643-6199 (Phone)
510-643-6171 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,154
Downloads: 326
Download Rank: 49,533
Footnotes:  48

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.422 seconds