Introduksjon til patent Arild Tofting Norsk og europeisk patentfullmektig Partner Protector IP Consultants AS

Hvordan er et patent bygget opp? Tittel Beskrivelse Generell beskrivelse av oppfinnelsen og sammenligning med kjent teknikk Beskrivelse av spesifikke utførelser av oppfinnelsen tegninger Patentkrav Selvstendige Uselvstendige Sammendrag The title is usually very general. The description has two parts: The general description states the object(s) of the invention and the general principles. The detailed description describes one (or preferably more) embodiments of the invention in detail. The more detail, the more retreat levels and alternative options for amendment of the protective scope are there. The drawings are there to support the detailed description and enhance the understanding. The claims: The important claims is/are the independent. The abstract has no significance except to give the reader an idea of what the patent is all about.

Beskrivelse og patentkrav Beskrivelsen: Som en informasjonsbank. Det er mulig å hente trekk fra beskrivelsen og putte inn i patentkravene. Hvis det ikke er beskrevet er det ikke mulig å legge til senere (uten å levere inn en ny søknad). Patentkrav: Definerer beskyttelsesomfanget. Må inneholde minst ett nytt trekk Kan ikke være nærliggende Endringer og utdypninger er mulig å gjøre under veis forutsatt at det er støtte i beskrivelsen. Claims: The independent claim(s) define the basic protection. To infringe the independent claim all features must (should) be present. In general a short claim with few features provides better protection than a long claim. If the claim has at least one novel feature or a novel combination of features and this results in an advantage over prior solutions, it is possible to argue in favour of patentability. The description may be taken into account in the interpretation of the claims. The description must be so thorough that a person of skill can carry out the invention. It is a great advantage to describe more than one embodiment. Sometimes it is more favourable to claim protection for, e.g., a valve for high pressure gas (with the features specific for this purpose) than claim a valve in general. In the latter case there is a risk that prior art exist showing a similar valve, e.g., for domestic water supply. Limiting the claims to what you really need will increase the chances to get a patent, but does not necessarily reduce the scope of protection in practice.

Eksempel på patentkrav “Kabelstreng omfattende et kjerneelement, et antall rørledninger og/eller kabler beliggende utenfor kjerneelementet, fyllmateriale omkring og mellom rørledningene/kablene og en beskyttende kappe som omgir rørledningene og fyllmaterialet, der fyllmaterialet og rørledningene/kablene er lagt i en spiralform omkring kjerneelementet, karakterisert ved at fyllmaterialet er i form av indre, langstrakte kanalelementer med utad åpnede kanaler beregnet på opptak av rørledningene/kablene, og ytre, langstrakte kanalelementer med innad åpnede kanaler beregnet på opptak og endelig omslutning av rørledningene/kablene.”

Eksempel på utførelse Beskyttende kappe Rørledning Ytre kanalelement Kjerneelement Indre kanalelement

Forberedelse av patentsøknad En god forklaring  en god søknad. Nøkkelpunkter for patentsøknaden: Hva er problemet som skal løses? Hvordan løser oppfinnelsen problemet? Hvilke tidligere løsninger finnes? Hva er de mulige anvendelser av oppfinnelsen? Kan oppfinnelsen realiseres på forskjellige måter? Hva er egentlig oppfinnelsen? Forundersøkelse før utarbeidelse? As with most things: It does not get better than the basis. Therefore, the more information the inventor (and project leader) can provide in form of drawings and description of the invention, the better application can be made. The inventor often has strong views about his invention: He is the expert in this field and it is important to take his views into consideration. These questions can provide information helping to define the invention and hence the protection as broadly as possible. To illustrate the difference this can make I have borrowed a little story (“What is really the invention?”) Sometimes it can be an advantage to perform a search in the available patent literature before starting the drafting of an application. ( “Search”)

Hva skal til for å få patent? Problem-løsning metoden

Veldig forenklet fremstilling av problem-løsning metoden. Problem som skal løses Oppfinnelsen Definer nytt problem Nærmeste kjente løsning Finn forskjeller Nærliggende: Ville fagmannen ha kommet frem til løsningen med utgangspunkt i problemet og kjent teknikk. Nei Løser dette problemet? Ja Ikke patent Ja Nei Nærliggende? Mulig patent

Patenter som informasjonskilde Hvilke tidligere løsninger finnes innen området? Hva slags teknologi er dine konkurrenter opptatt av? Er det noen patenter som kan hindre utnyttelse? Regelmessig overvåkning Enkle databasesøk kan raskt gi ganske brukbare resultater. http://ep.espacenet.com/ http://patft.uspto.gov/ https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/ Knowing some of the prior art before drafting can provide some prediction on what protection that may be achieved. Sometimes prior art is discovered that precludes protection. It is also a valuable source of information on what competitors are doing. Is the largest competitor active in patenting within the same field as you are, or are they focusing on different fields? Comprehensive searches can be made with this as a starting point. It is always very disappointing to spend a lot of money on developing new technology only to discover that somebody else has a key patent on this. The earlier you can get this information, the better. It is better to start license negotiations before you have decided on technology than after you have infringed the patent. Searches can be comprehensive and costly. In some cases information has to be found at any cost. However, to just get an overview, there are ways of browsing through millions of patents at low cost and just a few hours labour.

Behandling av søknaden Ved første søknad i Norge: Første uttalelse omtrent 6-7 måneder etter innlevering Gir en indikasjon på patenterbarhet Mulig å endre patentkrav for å omgå kjente løsninger MEN IKKE LEGGE TIL NOE SOM IKKE STÅR I SØKNADEN! Første innleveringsdato = Prioritetsdato The first application can be seen as a test on what to expect in the prosecution of the application worldwide. Since foreign applications should be filed within one year from the first application, this year should be used to refine the definition of the invention, explore the borders of possible protection and develop the principles of the invention as far as possible. Starting filing in your home country is usually the best, although it is possible to file the first application in virtually any country. In your home country you can get a search and examination based on an application in your own language. (The Norwegian Patent Office will also search and examine applications written in English, Swedish and Danish). It is easier to conduct a meeting with the Examiner, and it is less expensive than sending the application abroad (due to residence requirements). The first Office Action is often negative on the face of it, because the scope of the claims is usually to broad at the outset. The most valuable information is the prior art that the Examiner has found, and which we have to take into account in the further processing. Even though more relevant prior art sometimes occur when the application is prosecuted in other countries, we can in most cases rely on the first search. We can do almost amendments to the application as long as we do not add anything that is not already included. However, when a foreign application is filed we may add matter (come back to this later).

Tidslinjen Publisering PCT-søknad Mulig besvarelse Første søknad (Prioritetsdato) Nasjonal videreføring EP US CA 12 18 22 30 JP Første uttalelse PCT-uttalelse SG Nesten 140 andre The timeline I will use a lot. It is important because it tells you when you have to make decisions and when costs occur. It also tells you that a patent is not made in a day. It all starts with the preparation of the first or basic application (“First filing”).

Patentering i utlandet Det er ingenting som heter ”verdenspatent” Innlevering i utlandet innen: 12 måneder etter den første søknaden Før en hvilken som helst publisering av oppfinnelsen Det internasjonale PCT-systemet: Opsjon på å innlevere i nesten 140 land Utsette innlevering til 30 måneder Fører ikke til patent i seg selv, men gir verdifull gransking og patenterbarhetsvurdering Claiming priority: filing a second application within 12 months from the first application and receiving the same filing date as the first application. The priority date is important since this removes prior art published after the priority date (first filing date) as obstacles for patent. If priority is not claimed we have to make sure that no publication of the invention has taken place. Still somebody else may have published something in the meantime. The PCT system is the most effective way of applying for a patent in a large number of countries. Almost the entire northern hemisphere is included. The most important exceptions for you would probably be Angola, some Middle East countries (e.g. Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait), Venezuela and Taiwan. Filing a PCT application can best be described as buying an option to file a patent application in any of these countries at a later time, i.e. 30 months after the first application (priority date). This means postponing the decision and the costs. For most countries the patent will still apply from the PCT filing date. During the PCT process the application will be searched and examined. However, there will be no definite decision of granting a patent or not. This is up to each and every country to decide. However, a positive outcome of the PCT process is a strong indication on patentability. Big negative surprises are rare after the PCT phase. It is also possible to file applications directly in the individual countries. This is particularly relevant if few countries (less than 4) are of interest. The PCT phase will also postpone granting by approx. 1 ½ year. The prosecution language will for us be English.

PCT-stater (blå)

Europeisk patent (EPC) 34 medlemsstater (Norge ble medlem 1. Januar 2008) Én enkel søknad Ett behandlingsspråk (GB, FR or DE) En behandlingsmyndighet Etter at patent er meddelt  validering og oversettelse i hvert land (3 – 7 år etter innlevering) Londonavtalen sparer oversettelseskostnader The EPC system is like putting all the eggs in one basket. A single application, single prosecution, single decision on patentability. The advantage is a very large saving of costs, especially on prosecution. The prosecution language will for us be English. At filing all member states can be designated at small additional costs. The decision on which of these the patent should be validated for can be made after grant. Only at that time translations into the various languages must be made. The individual patents will live their own separate lives after validation. This means that infringement lawsuits must be filed in each separate country. (There is a Community Patent system under development that if put into force will be like getting one single patent as for individual countries, including a common patent court. However, this almost ready system has been put on ice for several years due to disagreements in the twelfth hour).

Konsekvenser av at Norge ble medlem av EPO Mulig å innlevere søknad til EPO uten å bruke utenlandsk patentfullmektig Noe kostnadsbesparelser I løpet av 3-4 år vil antallet patenter som gjelder for Norge trolig stige dramatisk Større fare for inngrep Behov for å følge bedre med Norske selskaper vil ha større oppmerksomhet mot patentrettigheter