Patent Planet

Information may not be reliable

Inventors on a tight budget sometimes file a provisional application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) instead of a regular U.S. patent application to save money and put off the task of claim drafting. Let's explore the advantages and disadvantages of provisionals.
First, a provisional application must include a specification meeting all the requirements of a U.S. patent application, except a provisional does not require any claims or a declaration. The PTO will not examine a provisional and will abandon it 12 months from its filing date rather than permit it to issue as a patent. A provisional can provide a filing date for the subject matter disclosed, creates no prosecution history, and has a smaller government filing fee. Before 12 months expire an applicant can, among other things (1) file a nonprovisional application, which is a regular U.S. patent application and claim the benefit of the provisional filing date, or (2) convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application. The benefit of option (1) is the 20-year patent term runs from the filing date of nonprovisional application rather than the provisional application. Thus, it gives applicants a way to establish a filing date at less expense (e.g., no attorney fees for drafting claims), plus a "one year head start" without concerns that the application will be examined. The benefit of option (2) is discussed below.
There are some traps built into provisional applications. First, the specification of a provisional application must support each claim that is subsequently submitted with the nonprovisional application to maintain the provisional filing date. Without claim drafting, there is a tendency to be over-inclusive in the specification, and figure out later what will be claimed. The problem is the unprotected subject matter is dedicated to the public. Worse, the provisional specification may not support the claims and this fact may not be discovered until the nonprovisional application is being prepared and invalidating commercialization has occurred. See New Railhead Mfg. Co. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. & Earth Tool Co. (Fed. Cir. 2002). Claim drafting helps the applicants and attorneys check that the specification supports the claims.
Another problem is that foreign patent offices may not recognize a U.S. provisional application as a proper basis for claiming foreign priority, because no patent issues directly from a provisional application and thus the provisional application may not qualify as "an application for patent" as required by the Paris Convention.
To address this later problem, as well as others, Congress passed the American Inventors Protection Act, effective November 29, 1999, to permit conversion of a provisional to a nonprovisional application. Although foreign patent offices may not recognize a U.S. provisional application as a basis for foreign priority, they should according to this Act grant priority to a converted provisional, that is, a nonprovisional application. At least that is the view we would like the other foreign patent offices to take.
So why not convert all provisional applications to nonprovisional applications within 12 months rather than file a U.S. patent application and claim priority to the provisional? The big reason is converting entails the 20-year patent term run from the filing date of the provisional application rather than the nonprovisional application so "the extra year" disappears, which might be the reason for filing the provisional application in the first place. It also appears to rarely be done. Several Bay Area patent attorneys indicated that they had not converted even one provisional and a seasoned PTO employee admitted he could recall at most a few cases of conversion.
Also the PTO web site and at least one intellectual property author claim a provisional application supports marking "patent pending" on products containing the invention. However, a provisional may not qualify as "an application for patent" as stated earlier. And legal authorities, such as 35 USC, the US Patent Law, the PTO rules (Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations), and Federal Circuit case law, don't appear to yet discuss this practice. Given it is a "grey area" and the willingness of some to recently sue for false marking, applicants may want to await legal authority supporting this practice or not mark until after a non-provisional application is filed. At minimum, the risk-taking applicant should file a U.S. patent application, also referred to as a nonprovisional within a year of the provisional filing date, claim the benefit of the provisional, and verify the product contains what is described in the provisional and non-provisional application.
The PTO is considering and taking comments on its proposal to extend the time for filing a nonprovisional from 12 to 24 months. "One of the things I kept hearing at the many roundtables we’ve held with inventors all across the country was that additional time flexibility during the provisional period would greatly benefit them," said Director of the USPTO David Kappos. "The existing 12-month provisional period may provide too little time for inventors to test the marketplace. Giving applicants a 12-month period to reply to a missing parts notice would effectively give applicants more time to evaluate the value and market potential of their inventions. It not only helps applicants decide whether to incur the additional costs involved in pursuing a patent, but also, makes the patent office more efficient in enabling the delivery of new products and services to market."
It should be noted that 35 USC 111 states a failure to file a nonprovisional within 12 months of the provisional's filing date results in abandonment. The proposed change would not alter this legal requirement, but would provide applicants more time to provide the missing parts of a nonprovisional application. As stated on the PTO web site, "Under the proposal, applicants would be permitted to file a nonprovisional application with at least one claim within the 12-month statutory period after the provisional application was filed, pay the basic filing fee, and submit an executed oath or declaration. In addition, the nonprovisional application would need to be in condition for publication and applicant would not be able to file a nonpublication request. Applicants would be given a 12-month period to decide whether to pay the required surcharge and the additional required fees."
Finally, some applicants (but not mine) have lost the right to foreign file by incorrectly assuming they had one year to foreign file from the date of the regular U.S. patent application. You must do any foreign filing (e.g., directly or via the PCT) and file (or convert to) a U.S. patent application within one year of the filing date of the provisional application to claim the benefit of the provisional application's filing date.

I encourage you to send comments regarding this article and to flag preferred topics for future articles in The Patzinger Series. But please do not send any confidential information. Thanks for your interest.
Legal Notice: This web site is for general information only. The information does not constitute legal advice, solicitation or advertising. Even if it appears relevant to your situation, do not rely on it. Instead, promptly seek the advice of a patent attorney. It may or may not reflect the latest legal development or apply to your situation. Of course, review of this web site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Patent Planet disclaims liability for any action taken or omitted based on the information herein.

Corporate Counsel, Patent Litigation Weekly - At Injunction Time, an Operating Company Gets the Troll Treatment (Apr. 26, 2010) Joe Mullin gives an insightful article on how injunctions work after the US Supreme Court's eBay decision in 2006.
Seattle.pi.com, VirnetX Stock Soars as Microsoft Patent Trial Nears (Mar. 7, 2010). Billions of dollars could be at stake. VirnetX says Microsoft products (e.g., Windows XP and Vista) infringe virtual private networks (VPNs) patents. And federal district court agrees.
CNET, Apples Sue HTC - Court Filings (Mar. 1, 2010) Apple sues "smartphone manufacturer" HTC for infringement of 20 US patents.
Patently-O, False Marking and Patent Reform (Feb. 28, 2010) Professor Crouch explains marking and false marking under US patent law.
WSJ, Action Heats Up Among Large and Small Patent Purchasers (Feb. 26, 2010) This article focuses on Intellectual Ventures activities including raising $5B to generate and purchase patents.
Patent Litigation Weekly: Google's First Patent Trial Win - IP Law & Business (Feb. 15, 2010) Demand for $800M for US patents for customizing ads on web fails for noninfringement.
Microsoft Sues TiVo Over Video Patent - PC Magazine (Jan. 20, 2010) TiVo says Microsoft's suit is simply a means to defend AT&T in a separate case. Huhh?
Kodak Sues Apple, RIM Over Patents - WSJ Online - Registrations Required (Jan. 14, 2010) - This article describes Kodak's patent licensing effort and its decision to sue Apple and RIM in the ITC. It appears to be a trend seeking an ITC exclusion order to sidestep the difficulties associated with injuctions after the US Supreme Court's decision in EBay.

Patent Wait Lengthens to 3.7 Years On Average - JS Online - Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (Jan. 14, 2010).
IBM May Not Be The Patent King - Business Week (Jan. 13, 2010). Quality trumps quantity. In the end you have to pick a patent which can stand up in court.
IBM Is The Year's Patent Champ, Again - CNET News (Jan. 12, 2010) IBM granted 4,914 US patents in 2009. This is 17th year in a row. Samsung second with 3,611 US patents, and Microsoft third with 2,906 US patents. IBM offers to sale its patent management software to companies eager to learn its patent strategies. Grants to US 49% and foreign entities 51%. Why so many US patents? True love or cross-licensing "opportunities- see next article.
Kodak, Samsung Settle Patent Suit - WSJ Online - Registration Required (Jan. 11, 2010) Kodak and Samsung agree to cross-licensing agreement to each others digital imaging patents.
So What Do E.D. Texas Jurors Really Think? The Prior Art Blog (Jan. 11, 2010) Microsoft gets set to delete XML software feature in Word, which was found to infringe I4's US patent, resulting in $290M damage award. The Prior Art Blog discusses the case with three of the eight jurors who ruled against Microsoft.

Talks Around Town
I spoke with UC Berkeley alumni at Lair of the Bear: Microsoft ordered to pay $565M for infringing Eolas and UC Regents web browser patent? (7/11-13/04) Format: PDF (1 MB)