No. Reduction to practice can be accomplished on paper only and before any working prototype of a product or process is prepared or perfected. Preparing and filing a patent application can be reduction to practice. An invention that is conceived by one or more inventors must be reduced to practice before the filing of a patent application. “Reduction to practice” can be describing the invention in words and/or drawings. The drawings can be hand sketches, process flow charts, or more elaborate forms like CAD or other computer-generated drawings or models. Text is needed that identifies features in the drawings and describes how they work or function in the invention. The number of drawings required for a patent application depends mainly on the complexity of the invention. In the case of a food or nutritional supplement product, chemical, or pharmaceutical invention in the form of a unique composition or mixture of known ingredients, no drawings may be necessary. However, that type of invention and many others may include a process for producing or using the invention. A drawing should be provided as a flowchart in such cases to show the steps of the process. In the case of a chemical or pharmaceutical invention directed only to a new molecule or form, the drawing requirement may be met with a depiction of a chemical structure. So, reduction to practice can be accomplished on paper only and before any working prototype of a product or process is prepared or perfected.

It depends. It can be very useful to file a patent application as soon as possible after conceiving of an invention and reducing it to practice. One of the main reasons is that US patent law relies primarily on assigning “priority” for claims in a patent application based on the date a first patent application is filed. There have been cases where someone in another country invents and files a patent application outside of the USA that is closely related or the same as an invention filed as a US patent application just a short time after that foreign application is filed. The US inventor would have no way of knowing about such an “independent invention” because there is a time period before a patent application is published and available to be found in a search. It could be found later during examination of the US applicant’s patent application, or even after a US patent is granted during a third party challenge to that patent’s validity (e.g., inter partes review, aka “IPR”).

The timing for filing a patent application should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Once a basic concept for an invention is reduced to practice, a patent application can be filed before the invention is further refined and perfected. As those refinements are made, additional subject matter in the form of text and drawings can be added to the first patent application. The timing of filing a patent application may also depend on factors such as one’s ability to maintain their invention as a trade secret or otherwise confidential and non-public, their business plan and funding level, a patentability and/or freedom to operate opinion for the invention, whether or not foreign patent rights will be sought, the urgency or need to publicize, market, or begin selling the product or service of the invention, among other things.

A best practice for an inventor or business that has a basic concept of an invention reduced to practice and ready to be marketed to customers, suppliers, retailers, potential licensees, etc. may be to file a first patent application for the basic conception of a “minimum viable product” and consider additional patent applications for follow-on versions. A related best practice can be to file additional patent application(s) including the new feature(s) for the follow-on version(s)/refinement(s) to the basic concept within one year from the filing date of the first patent application AND before publicizing those additional version(s) of the product or service in any way (e.g., advertising, offering for sale, etc.).

Yes. Software may be patented in the USA and other countries. This includes traditional software, smartphone applications, and firmware (e.g., for embedded systems). In some cases, the invention may be claimed narrowly as applied to a very specific commercial or industrial application (e.g., machine learning or artificial intelligence applied to operation of industrial robots, blockchain applied to commercial logistics, control of electric generation systems for reliability and efficiency gains, etc.). In other cases, the invention may be claimed more broadly (analysis or prediction technique generally applicable to any big data set, algorithms for image processing or data encryption, etc.).

US patent law places some unique and stringent requirements that must be met in the preparation of a patent application to a software-related invention. A best practice may be to present such inventions in various ways and framed in a variety of contexts in the patent application. The approach to preparing and prosecuting software and related patent application is unique and more rigorous as compared to other types of inventions involving electrical, computer, and mechanical engineering, communications, and materials science technology, for example. Applying knowledge of the special requirements early on in preparing patent applications in the software arts helps ensure a successful outcome during patent examination and after a patent is granted.

No. Reducing a software invention to practice so that a patent application may be filed can rely on higher level software engineering and design documentation such as process flow charts, logical state diagrams, representations of data structures, etc. Accordingly, a patent application for such technology may be prepared and filed even before the design is implemented in executable code.

Yes, but it depends on the facts and circumstances of any particular case. General considerations and factors to consider include the nature and extent of any change to the structure and/or function of a feature of the existing invention (which may include the elimination of the need for a structural component and/or the addition of a new structure having a new function), whether the existing invention is being put to use for a different purpose, the extent to which the improvement or other modification to the existing invention provides a benefit in some technical or other way and being able to effectively articulate that in a patent application, etc.

An inventor’s approach to this question may include a “design around” process where the existing designs and/or processes of others are studied, with improvements being conceived and reduced to practice in preparation for filing a patent application. Some such improvements may include a new process to make an existing product or material more quickly or cheaply. Similar considerations may apply to improvements or modifications to one’s own already patented patent or pending patent application. In the latter case, additional considerations come into play because the patent or pending application may be considered as “prior art” to the improvement and be cited against it during patent examination even though the new patent application directed to the improvement may be owned by the same applicant.

Yes. A US patent only provides patent rights within the jurisdiction of the USA. One may file patent applications in individual foreign countries within one year after filing a US patent application. This is a strict deadline and if not met, the potential for foreign patent rights is forfeit even if a US patent is later granted. It is often difficult to anticipate which foreign countries an invention may be worthwhile to file a patent application in. The international (aka “PCT”) patent application process provides a cost effective way to extend the aforementioned on year foreign filing deadline to up to 2.5 years. This additional time can be very useful to gain more knowledge and insight into foreign markets for the invention, seek partners in the USA and abroad for licensing or sale of the invention and intellectual property related to it, research and validate the market and sell products/provide services related to the invention in the USA, develop and refine a business plan, obtain necessary funding, etc.

A granted US patent provides the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention for up to 20 years after the application is filed. “Practicing” the claimed invention includes making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States. Foreign patents may provide similar rights in their jurisdiction for a similar term of protection. The licensing and/or sale of patents or other forms of intellectual property can be an important aspect of a business plan. Where a potential licensee or buyer of a patent is interested in commercializing an invention outside of the USA, a patent that is either granted or has the potential to be granted in a foreign country of interest to that licensee or buyer may be viewed as being more valuable and so may increase the valuation of the licensor or seller’s company.

When an inventor or business can reasonably anticipate that foreign patent rights can add value to their business plan or could be of interest to a present or future partner like a licensee or buyer, direct foreign filings or filing an international (aka “PCT”) patent application should be considered in addition to seeking US patent rights. Without foreign patent rights existing for a corresponding granted US patent, any third party can freely “practice” the respective invention outside of the USA without legal recourse.

A design patent application claim seeks to protect rights to a unique ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. Features protectable by a design patent may include shape/configuration and/or surface ornamentation of an object that is not otherwise eligible for a utility patent for whatever reason. By contrast, a utility patent claim seeks to protect how something works, functions, or is used. A simple example is a ball point pen that was covered by a utility patent over a hundred years ago being made to have a new ornamental appearance that is eligible for a design patent. In some cases, an invention that can potentially be protected under a utility patent application can also be eligible for a design patent, and the two types of patent applications may be filed and prosecuted concurrently. The process and laws with the preparation and examination of design and utility patent applications differ substantially, but each type of patent can be valuable to a business alone or in combination with one another.

Yes. While clearly not as valuable as a granted patent, a patent application can still add value to a business in various ways. A patent applicant having formally filed a US or international (aka “PCT”) patent application is legally entitled to use the phrase patent pending in marketing or other communications related to the claimed invention. This can have a deterrent effect to potential competitors for the goods or services of the invention and so provide benefits for the patent applicant to further develop the market for the invention. A US patent application will be published unless the applicant requests otherwise.

When published, the patent application becomes available for use by US and foreign patent examiners as “prior art” as to any future domestic or foreign patent applications directed to the same or similar inventions. As such, competitors seeking patent rights to the same or similar inventions will be frustrated in their efforts and the patent applicant may enjoy extended opportunity in the market and other benefits such as the “goodwill” of customers or supply chain participants which can be protected under valuable trademark rights even if a patent is never granted.

Patents and other intellectual property (IP) are sometimes referred to as intangible property in contrast to real estate and other tangible property. Like tangible property, IP can be assigned a monetary value. One approach to valuation of a patent (or even a pending patent application) is to consider the revenue or profit achievable to the patent owner providing a patented product or service to customers as compared to the achievable revenue or profit for the same product or service absent the patent rights associated with it.

This approach may assume a reasonable annual growth rate of sales and a rate of inflation for the per unit sale price of the good or service. The remaining term of protection for the patent may also be considered. A main underlying concept in this approach is that a patented good or service may be sold at a premium price due to the absence of competition in the market during the term that patent rights are in force. We utilize a network of trusted IP valuation experts to provide valuation reports for individual intellectual property assets or portfolios.

Yes. Typically, we work with the patent attorney handling the foreign company’s trademarks in the respective country to file US patent applications on behalf of the company. One route to accomplish this is as a US “national stage” application of an international (aka “PCT”) patent application previously filed in a foreign country.

To mitigate risks and increase the odds of a favorable outcome, a patent owner who suspects infringement of their rights by a third party should undertake a careful study of the product or process in question. Documentation of such a study should include a detailed comparison between the features of the suspected infringing product or process and the elements recited in the claims of the issued patent. Working with a patent attorney in this investigation stage can be very beneficial to develop and analyze evidence and provide a high level of confidence before taking appropriate legal action.

No. This isn’t required under US law, but it can provide some useful benefits. Providing text such as “US Pat. 1,234,567” on a product may seem like a hassle and an unnecessary expense for a patent owner, especially if their existing production process or marketing materials are not designed to accommodate that. An alternative for some products may be to provide such marking on the product packaging. For a patented process or service, marking to identify any corresponding patents may be provided on websites and advertising materials. Another option some patent owners utilize instead of physically marking the product itself is known as virtual patent marking. That technique still requires text to be printed on product packaging or marketing materials for a process, but takes the form of the word “patent” or “pat.”, followed by a website address. This website should list the relevant patent numbers linked to the product, process, or service, enabling the public to check the associated patents. In addition to having a deterrent effect on potential infringers, marking or virtually marking with patent numbers provides constructive notice to potential infringers that the product or service is patented. This enables a patent owner plaintiff who is successful in a patent infringement to be eligible to collect damages back to the start of the infringement by the defendant. This is contrasted with infringement by others of a patented product or service that is not so marked. In the latter case, actual notice of infringement must be provided to the accused infringer by the patent owner, and damages that a successful patent infringement plaintiff can obtain will be limited to the date the defendant was provided actual notice.

Some of the above considerations may also apply to marking with the phrase “patent pending” for a product, process, or service that is the subject of one or more utility and/or design patent applications which have not yet been granted. Note that using the aforementioned marking where there are no issued patents or pending patent applications covering it is a violation of federal law and could subject one to penalties.

It depends. The current guidance of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) is based on the premise that only a human may be named as an inventor in a patent application, and that a patent is only legally valid and enforceable if the correct inventorship is listed. An AI system may not be named as an inventor in a patent application. The USPTO does not require disclosure by a patent applicant of the use of an AI-based system. Inventions made with AI-assistance are not categorically ineligible. Rather, patent examiners take a case-by-case/claim-by-claim approach which includes assessing the significance of the contribution made by one or more human inventors to the claims under examination. Foreign jurisdictions including the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United Kingdom (UK) have taken similar positions as the USPTO on this topic. Like the question of the eligibility for copyright protection for AI-generated creative works, the law and policy with respect to patentability of AI-assisted inventions is still evolving.

Yes. A US application must be filed first, but need not be registered yet before initiating foreign trademark applications.

A trademark application must specify one or more classes of goods and/or services that the mark will be associated with. It is a good practice to do a trademark search for the same or similar versions of the mark for which you will submit a registration application. The results of the search are useful and what those results mean to an applicant depend on such factors as what classes another’s mark is already registered or pending before the USPTO in, and how similar their mark is to yours.

It depends. Assuming that a business owner cannot obtain the desired domain by purchasing it, an alternative name or phrase may be devised and its availability as a domain name may be determined. In the case where an existing company name cannot be used as a domain name, the company may consider registering a domain name for a brand name for a product or service offered by the company and that is different from the company name. Instead of selecting a different word or phrase for use as a domain name, one could consider modifying the first choice desired mark for use as a domain name that is available. This may include shortening or modifying the word or phrase of the mark, such as by adding dashes between words of a phrase, abbreviating it or else registering a domain name for just the first word of a phrase. Similarly, one may register their desired first choice word or phrase as a website domain with a different top-level domain (TLD) (e.g., use a .co where .com is not available).

A company having more than one brand attached to various products or services can have domains for each one and direct users to a single website (or a specific page of a different website) from the various brands’ website entries. With respect to how selecting and registering a domain name relates to trademark rights being sought or those rights of third parties, the considerations are similar to how a trademark examiner considers a trademark application under the “likelihood of confusion” standard. That is to say, registering and using a domain name to a particular mark may constitute infringement of another’s trademark rights where such use of the corresponding website is for a sufficiently similar product or service that the third party provides and has pre-existing trademark rights to the mark. Similar considerations may apply to social media handles.

Yes. Under current US trademark law, such a logo presented in a trademark registration application is examined under the same legal standards as any other logo. However, such a logo most likely is not eligible for copyright protection under current US law.

The registered trademark symbol ® may only be used in connection with a mark if the mark has been registered with the USPTO. Proper use and placement of the ® symbol with the mark gives third parties “constructive notice” that the mark is federally registered. As with patent marking, use of the ® symbol by the trademark owner results in an alleged infringer being deemed to have had notice that the mark is protected by a federal trademark registration. In the absence of a federal trademark registration, or while such an application is still pending, the trademark owner may instead utilize the “TM” symbol (for a good) of the “SM” symbol (for a service) to signify and provide notice to third parties that the user of the mark claims ownership of it (aka common law trademark rights). Note that using the aforementioned marking where there are no issued patents or pending patent applications covering it is a violation of federal law and could subject one to penalties.

No. This is not permitted under federal law unless and until the mark is registered as a trademark by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).

Like patents and trademarks, an owner or a trademark must assert their intellectual property rights in their mark. Absent being made aware by an owner or other third party, the USPTO does not typically initiate any enforcement actions against infringement on behalf of intellectual property rights of private owners. Policing thus refers to the practice of how a trademark (or patent or copyright) owner becomes aware of potential infringers. Enforcement is then how infringement is addressed by an owner through legal means, which may initially involve the trademark contacting the alleged infringer, as by a cease and desist letter.

Yes. Typically, I work with the trademark attorney handling the foreign company’s trademarks in the respective country to file US trademark applications on behalf of the company.

Initially nothing is needed. Your copyright arises under law as soon as your creative expression (a.k.a. “work of authorship”) is affixed into a tangible medium viewable by you or others and no longer only as just an idea in your mind’s eye. This is true even if the work is not published. However, for a number of reasons, it may be advisable to register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Yes. One example is a website that may utilize a uniquely useful software application in its functioning (patent), includes original content, design, or artwork (copyright), and a brand name or logo (trademark).

The concept of “policing” applies analogously as described above for trademarks. An intellectual property owner may periodically search the web or review other sources using word or image search tools. Alternatively, owners may consider using third party providers who specialize in policing intellectual property rights. Upon detecting copyright infringement, the owner communicates their findings to the alleged infringer and may attempt to negotiate a settlement without court litigation in the form. This may involve payment for prior unauthorized use, a license and royalty for permitted future use, or the alleged infringer ceasing the copying altogether.

It depends. A logo for a business may be registered federally as a trademark if the application meets the legal standards. The same logo may also have a copyright if the logo contains a substantial amount of original authorship or creative elements. The existence of the trademark registration and the copyright protects both the commercial value and the creative content of the logo, and also provides greater leverage against infringers and multiple avenues for enforcement. That is, the copyright provides deterrence and the ability to stop use of the logo by others in many contexts besides in connection with a particular good or service “in commerce.”

No. Although it is evolving, current US law and policy is that because such works do not have a human “author,” they are not protected by copyright law. In an application to the US Copyright Office to register a work, the applicant must disclose that AI-based tools were utilized to generate the works and also articulate the specifics of the contribution to the work by the human author(s). However, AI generated logos may be eligible for trademark registration by the USPTO.