Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 JULY 2018

A Sighting Of AIA Derivation

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Before the American Invents Act, the U.S. had a "first-to-invent" patent system. That system included provisions for resolving disputes concerning who was the first to invent ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Before the American Invents Act, the U.S. had a "first-to-invent" patent system. That system included provisions for resolving disputes concerning who was the first to invent, called "interferences," and took place both before the USPTO and the courts (pre-AIA §135 and §291). Interferences between parties who collaborated or otherwise shared communications often involved issues of first-to-invent, i.e., priority and derivation. Priority and derivation are alternative theories, however, as one who derives an invention is neither a first nor a second inventor; he is a noninventor. Derivation has been a recognized issue in interferences, as well as a ground for invalidating a patent in court or rejecting a claim during prosecution (pre-AIA §102(f)).1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from