[ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?

[Bob Purvy]

Correct, Scott. First to file just eliminated "I thought of this and wrote
it in my notebook, but never published it."

Jack's statement

At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the
impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the
complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for
20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would
rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously unknown
(to the Examiners)  prior art.


is wrong. Prior art is still anything published.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:32 PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or more
> before the patent application
> was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not change
> that - first to file just means
> that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the one
> getting a patent on the invention
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a patent fight
> that had been going on literally for 20+ years.  The Patent Office had
> issued the patent and it had been invalidated and revalidated several times
> as the lawyers battled over the decades.
> >
> > That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art played
> a large role in challenging the validity of patents.  We use the Arpanet
> IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the patent (actually just one
> of many claims).  The issue of whether or not the patent was actually valid
> (even though it had alrready expired after 17 years) was never resolved,
> because the litigants settled out of court.
> >
> > At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
> apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the impression I
> got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the complexity of
> finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for 20+ years.  Prior
> art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be
> invalidated by presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)  prior
> art.
> >
> > I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually changed
> after the 2013 switch to "First To File".  It seemed that such a change
> would make filing a patent much more important to establish ownership of
> some innovation.   It wouldn't help to search and find someone who had done
> it before, but failed to file a patent.  Whoever filed first legally owned
> the technology.
> >
> > My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates technology
> (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the shelf" for anyone to
> use.  But does the IETF (or anyone else) protect such innovations by filing
> a patent?
> >
> > What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever IETF puts
> "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>