Does Provisional Trump Regular Patent Application?

Dear Rich: Can you answer a question about provisional patent applications? We've invented an automobile accessory and we filed a provisional patent application. Then we filed a regular patent application. We recently learned that someone else has filed a regular patent application before ours (but after we filed our provisional). Do we lose the race because they filed a regular application before us? Under current patent law (first-to-invent) there is no race to the patent office. The issue is who invented the device first. That said, filing dates are important because they often reflect the date of invention (or constructive reduction to practice). Your filing of a provisional patent application, assuming it accurately reflects the invention in your regular application, can be used as prior art to stop a later inventor (or filer in this case) from obtaining a patent. In summary, if you wrote a good provisional patent application, you're probably the winner. This rule was demonstrated in a court case about a year ago. An inventor, Giacomini, filed a patent application claiming a method of selectively storing sets of electronic data. Another inventor, Tran, filed a patent application after Giacomini for a similar invention. However, Tran’s application was based on a provisional patent application that accurately described the invention and was filed before Giacomini’s application. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that Tran as “first inventor,” could claim patent rights and use his patent application as prior art against Giacomini. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Would the outcome be any different under the America Invents Act? On March 16, 2013, the U.S. switches to a first-to-file system. Under that system, the first inventor to file gets the patent. So, the outcome would likely be the same as your provisional patent application would be considered the first filing. Again, that's assuming your provisional patent application accurately reflected the invention claimed in your regular application.

Does Filing For Patent End NDA?

Dear Rich: If company A and company B have both signed a legal nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and then company A applies for a patent on the business plan covered in the NDA, does that make the information public and therefore make the NDA null and void? Information in a patent application becomes public when the USPTO publishes an application 18 months after filing. If the applicant does not plan on filing in foreign countries, the applicant can opt out of the 18-month publication program. If the applicant has opted out, the application will only become public if the application issues (or the applicant changes position on foreign filing). (We've discussed that previously, here.)
What happens after publication. Whenever the information is published, that information can no longer be protected as a trade secret and will not be subject to an NDA. That doesn't necessarily make your NDA "null and void." If other nonpublished information has been included as part of the NDA, that should still be protected. For more on the subject, check out our NDA site.

Can Yoga Moves Be Copyrighted?

Dear Rich: I've been following the Bikram Yoga stories and it's still not clear to me. Can I practice Bikram Yoga techniques at my studio or will I get sued by the Bikram people? The jury is still out on the case you're discussing in which Bikram founder Bikram Choudhury sued a former Bikram practitioner who started a competing "hot yoga" school (Yoga To The People or "YTTP") for copyright and trademark infringement. We thought we answered a similar question a while back but we couldn't dig it up so we assume it was written in a parallel universe.
The copyright case(s).  Bikram and his competitors have been in and of courtrooms over the past ten years. One group of yoga practitioners sought relief after Bikram sent out a bunch of cease and desist letters in approximately 2002 and 2003. That battle ended in a settlement in 2005 but not before a court weighed in on a few important issues. The court determined that: individual yoga moves could not be protected; a compilation of moves might be protected if sufficient originality could be demonstrated; even if a copyright were granted for a collection of moves, it would be a "thin copyright" and would likely be limited to performing the moves in the exact sequence; and the performance of yoga moves did not necessarily amount to their publication. As for the use of heat as part of the sequence -- and who wouldn't want to be in a yoga room packed with half-naked sweaty people -- no protection can be granted for this "concept." In September of this year, Bikram started up again, this time going after YTTP for copyright and trademark infringement. Bikram has received several copyrights for books and other compilations. However, the Copyright Office announced last week that yoga moves are not eligible for copyright protection. Bikram's lawyers discounted that decision as meaningless because Bikram's copyright has already issued and is presumed valid. It's true that there is a presumption of validity associated with a copyright registration but it's a rebuttable presumption and courts periodically eighty-six registrations when the situation calls for it. This may prove to be one of those situations.
Can you use the trademark? Probably, the strongest claim that Bikram can make is for trademark rights -- specifically as to the use of the name, Bikram Yoga. Bikram hasn't made the mistake of Pilates and permitted the unlicensed use of his name. So, if he can demonstrate that the Bikram marks (and we're not sure what is claimed beyond the name)  have been used, he may be able to succeed on trademark infringement claims.
Can it be patented? We don't think a collection of yoga moves is patentable, an opinion shared by other patent practitioners and by the patent office, although it is possible to obtain patents on yoga products, like the yoga gloves and shoes, shown above). (And of course let's not make the sad journalistic mistake of confusing copyrights and patents.)
Bottom Line Dept. If we were a betting blog, we would bet that Bikram will fail in his current copyright case though we doubt if that will deter the celebrity attraction that is associated with his "brand." The takeaway point, however, is that, until stopped by a published court ruling, the company is likely to continue to aggressively "protect" its turf.

Insurance for Patent Enforcement?

Dear Rich: I am patent pending and am worried about what will happen if my patent is granted and a big company rips me off. I can't afford to sue a big company. Will lawyers take my case for a cut of the profits? What do the little guys do? Getting into a lawsuit sounds pretty scary, probably a lot scarier than our neighbor's excellent Franken-pumpkin which appeared yesterday afternoon. It's a beautiful job and when we asked him whether he bought that shaped pumpkin because it looked like Frankenstein, he replied that no, when he got it home and looked at it for a while, the pumpkin said "Frankenstein" to him. Now that's how creative people channel inspiration. It's a little bit like the sculptor who, when asked how to scultpt an elephant, said, "Take a big block of marble and chip away everything that doesn’t look like an elephant."
Right, you had a question. Yes, an independent inventor with limited funds is in a bind when it comes to patent enforcement. Even if the funds can be found to fight a big company, the battle can drag on for years and cause much personal turmoil. Like patent expert David Pressman puts it, the utility patent is basically a hunting license. Obtaining the license without the necessary funds to use it against others makes it a useless piece of paper. There are three common solutions for this issue:

• align yourself with a big company. A big company usually will -- as part of your licensing agreement --  chase down (or possibly scare off) thieves and competitors. The downside is that you may end up earning less from your invention if someone licenses it (versus the profit margin if you manufacture it). On the other hand, often it's just the opposite and the right licensee can earn you substantial profits and save you a lot of hassle.
• consider offensive insurance. Yes, there is such a thing as offensive patent insurance and you can read more about its pros and cons.
• find a contingency litigator. Some patent attorneys take cases on contingency. This is often difficult and can be expensive (giving up a third or more of the recovery). Learn more here.

When Will the 1-Year Grace Period for Patents End?

Dear Rich: I filed a provisional patent application this week. I've been selling my product that I hope to patent for the past three months. The new patent law ends the one-year grace period. So where does that leave me and my application? You should be fine, provided that you file your regular patent application within a year of the provisional filing. The aspect of the law that you're referring to doesn't go into effect until March 16, 2013, and only applies to patents filed on or after that date.
What about the one-year grace period? The one-year grace period -- which allowed applicants to obtain patents even if if they had been selling or had published their patent less than a year before filing -- will terminate (with some exceptions) on March 15, 2013. As David Pressman, author of Patent It Yourself, recently explained in his excellent analysis of the America Invents Act:

"The one-year grace period has been decimated so that any publication, public use, or offer of sale of an invention before an application’s actual filing date will bar the application. An exception: if the actual inventor-applicant created the publication and it was made up to one year before the filing date, it will not bar the application. However it is still unwise for an inventor to publish before filing since they will lose their foreign filing rights and another person may see the publication and file their own application on it before the true inventor files, thus requiring an expensive and uncertain derivation proceeding."

Check out the article for more details, and for more on the AIA, you can read about the USPTO's implementation plans, and you can review a timeline for AIA implementation.

Paying More, Not Less, for Patent Filing

Dear Rich: I waited until after the new patent law passed to file aprovisional patent application I wanted the newmicro-entity fees to go into effect. But when I went to pay, yesterday, I wasn’t given a choice for micro-entity, only small entity. Iended up paying more to file than before the law was passed.  Your timeline for the patent law says thatthe micro entity fees go into effect immediately. What’s going on? Welcome topatent ‘reform.’ Our timeline is correct. Section 10 of  the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act establishes that the new micro entity fees will go into effect immediately upon enactment (September 16, 2011). Alas, patent filers who sought to takeadvantage of the reduced micro entity fees -- for example, the fee for filing a provisional patent application would beapproximately $62 – were out of luck. The USPTO issued a press releaseexplaining the delay and provided no date for implementation (although some sources claim that the USPTO will not make micro entity feesavailable until 2013).
Why did you pay more? The law also establishes that a 15% fee increase goes into effect 10 days after enactment (September 26, 2011). Apparently, the USPTO had no problem implementing fee increases and a new fee schedule was rolled out on time. As a result, independent inventors like yourself are actually paying $15 more to file aprovisional patent application than before the law was "reformed."

P.S. Wondering what qualifies as a micro entity and how it differs from a small entity? Here's an explanation.