Patent Emergency! What to do when you’ve (accidentally) disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application

Patent Emergency! What to do when you’ve (accidentally) disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application

One of the cornerstones of the patent system in many countries, including the UK, is the need to apply for a patent before disclosing your invention publicly. This is because such ‘self-disclosure’ can be used to invalidate a subsequently filed patent application. That’s a horrible situation, because you may have really shot yourself in the foot in terms of getting patent protection in the UK and in many other countries. Therefore, we firmly advise that you keep the invention secret before filing a patent application on the invention.

But, in the real world these things can happen. So what can you do if you’ve accidentally disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application?

Importantly, you should not assume there is nothing you can do. Please talk to your patent attorney. It may still be possible to validly file an application. For example, what was disclosed may not be the actual invention as later defined in the claims of your patent application. In that case, you may still be in the game. Also, if your disclosure was confidential or if a disclosure was made as the result of an abuse, such as a breach of confidence, it may still be possible to validly file a patent application.

Grace Periods - Patents

It is also useful to know that in some countries it is possible to make a self-disclosure and still validly file a patent application within a period of time after the self-disclosure – namely within the grace period.

The lists below indicate some of the countries in which it is possible to file a patent application after a disclosure.  The lists are not exhaustive. Some countries stipulate that an application must be filed within six months of the disclosure while others allow a more lenient 12 months grace period. Disclosures within the grace period are not taken into account as prior art in determining novelty or inventive step of the invention in the patent application (in some countries this applies in determining only novelty). You will note that the UK and the European Patent Office do not have a grace period, but some economically very significant countries do.

 

Countries which allow a 6 month grace period:

Albania 

Andorra

Japan*

Russian Federation

Uzbekistan

Eurasian Patent Organisation

 * for disclosures made before 9 December 2017

 

Countries which allow a 12 month grace period:

Algeria

Argentina^

Armenia

Australia

Azerbaijan^

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Bolivia

Brazil    

Canada

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador^

Estonia

Georgia

Ghana^

Guatemala

Honduras

Japan **

Jordan^

Kenya

Kyrgyz Republic

Latvia

Malaysia

Malta

Mauritius^

Mexico^

Morocco

Mozambique^ 

Oman   

Papua New Guinea

Peru

Philippines^

Republic of Korea

Sri Lanka^

Thailand^

Trinidad and Tobago^

Turkey

Ukraine               

Uruguay^

USA

 

^ disclosure not to be taken into account in determining novelty

** for disclosures made on or after 9 December 2017

 

Grace Periods - Utility Models

Another option is to look at filing a utility model (also known as a utility patent). A utility model is an IP right which is generally similar to a patent. It has a similar written description to a patent and it has patent claims. Generally, the term of protection for a utility model is less than for a patent, but it will still provide protection for a number of years (commonly 10 years).

The list below indicates some of the countries where it is possible to file a utility model after a disclosure. For simplicity, we do not show countries where it is already possible to file a patent application having the same grace period.

 

Countries which allow a 6 month grace period:

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Germany

Hungary

Romania

Slovak Republic

   

             

There may be other options too, which take advantage of certain ‘quirks’ in the IP laws of some countries. We cannot guarantee that the lists above are complete and totally correct as countries’ laws may change. Also, the exact way in which the grace period operates varies from country to country. For example, some countries place certain requirements on the patent applicant.

Conclusions

So, the main point to take away is that, even if you have publicly disclosed your invention before filing a patent application, all may not be lost. However, it is important to talk to your patent attorney as soon as possible after you realise you have made a self-disclosure. In this way, you can ensure that the correct steps are taken to maximise your position.

Dr Ian Lambert, Rebecca Quiney, and Dr Susanna Stephen, Wynne-Jones IP Limited

© Wynne-Jones IP Limited 2019

Related News

Plant patents at the EPO - is an amended EU Biotech Directive (98/44/EC) on the horizon?
news

Plant patents at the EPO - is an amended EU Biotech Directive (98/44/EC) on the horizon?

The saga of plant patents at the EPO continues - do recent events at the EPO and the European Commission suggest that there will be an attempt to amend the EU Biotech Directive 98/44/EC?

IP expert praises one million women in STEM roles to mark International Day of Women and Girls in Science
news

IP expert praises one million women in STEM roles to mark International Day of Women and Girls in Science

A leading intellectual property expert has said it is “incredibly encouraging” to see almost one million women in STEM roles for the first time, but called for continued action to support this upwards trend.

Small Irish business wins ’David and Goliath’ trade mark case against McDonalds
news

Small Irish business wins ’David and Goliath’ trade mark case against McDonalds

An Irish fast-food company has claimed a famous victory over one of the biggest brands in the world. Supermac, a beloved restaurant chain throughout Ireland and Northern Ireland, has successfully challenged McDonalds over its trade mark for ‘Big Mac’ in the European Union.

IP expert claims Aldi “copycat” make up could be damaging to bigger brands
news

IP expert claims Aldi “copycat” make up could be damaging to bigger brands

Aldi’s newly released, discounted beauty products have been accused of “potentially infringing” major labels including Benefit, Nars, and Charlotte Tilbury.

EPO Board of Appeal finds that plants *ARE* patentable at the EPO - Rule 28(2) EPC is unenforceable
news

EPO Board of Appeal finds that plants *ARE* patentable at the EPO - Rule 28(2) EPC is unenforceable

We have previously reported on the introduction of new Rule 28(2) EPC regarding the patentability of plants and animals obtained by “an essentially biological process”. As detailed in our November 2018 article, the first case to go to appeal was scheduled to take place on 5 December 2018. That hearing has now taken place and a decision has issued.

 

2018 Diversity Report
news

2018 Diversity Report

Here at Wynne-Jones IP, we’re big on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. To celebrate it being IP Inclusive week, we’ve released our Diversity Report for 2018.

news

Mental health in intellectual property – breaking down barriers

Mental illness is frequently referred to as the ‘last taboo'.

First case to go to appeal at EPO since new Rule 28(2) EPC was implemented
news

First case to go to appeal at EPO since new Rule 28(2) EPC was implemented

Last July we reported1 on the introduction of new Rule 28(2) EPC regarding the patentability of plants and animals obtained by “an essentially biological process”.

Following this, a case2 is now going to appeal at the EPO to contest the interpretation and validity of this new Rule.  Significantly this will be the first case to go to the Boards of Appeal since Rule 28(2) EPC was implemented. Oral proceedings are scheduled to take place on 5th December 2018.3

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo