How should I avoid someone patenting technology in my paper/poster?My research paper filed as a patent in China by my Chinese supervisor without me as inventorHow to get cited and how to boost the impact of one's work?A single definitive paper, or an initial manuscript and a followup?How to know if my work is worth a paper?No luck with postdoc hunting after PhD. Will things change with a major paper out?Thesis supervisor wants me to publish my work in his own conferenceHow to publish superseding results without creating enemies
What does "können" refer to in this sentence?
Why did we never simplify key signatures?
Can a Rogue exploit a tiny familiar for automatic Sneak Attack in melee?
Advance of d4 in the Ruy Lopez
Dollar cost averaging vs buy low/sell high
Can I call the airport to see if my boyfriend made it through customs?
Combining two plots with separate frame tick styles
Banking system in C++
Is there a sonic boom when flying nearby?
Exactly what color was the text on monochrome terminals with green-on-black and amber-on-black screens?
What does "Massage with salt" mean in a recipe?
Is there any theory why (for Bitcoin) the discrete logarithm problem is so hard to solve?
How do you technically represent a procedurally-generated map in the scene?
A New Math Operation?
Plane ticket price went down by 40% two weeks after I booked it. Is there anything I can do to get a refund?
Merge two NTFS partitions
Line between lines of a shape in illustrator
A bob hanging in an accelerating train moves backward. What is the force moving it backward?
Is it good to take a fianchettoed Bishop?
Why does rm manual say that we can run it without any argument, when this is not true?
Why 401k contribution as % of salary vs. fixed amount per pay check?
Algorithmic thinking problems
What is the largest piece of space debris volumetrically?
Was Nixon right, and if so, to what degree was he right, when he said that "... but when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."?
How should I avoid someone patenting technology in my paper/poster?
My research paper filed as a patent in China by my Chinese supervisor without me as inventorHow to get cited and how to boost the impact of one's work?A single definitive paper, or an initial manuscript and a followup?How to know if my work is worth a paper?No luck with postdoc hunting after PhD. Will things change with a major paper out?Thesis supervisor wants me to publish my work in his own conferenceHow to publish superseding results without creating enemies
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
I am working on a paper in the field of AI. I've developed a new technology that allows many state of the art benchmarks to be improved on. I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached. My fear is that someone will patent the work soon after I publish the paper and prevent this from happening. Should I patent the technology myself before publishing? Is there a better solution?
publications patents technology
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
|
show 2 more comments
I am working on a paper in the field of AI. I've developed a new technology that allows many state of the art benchmarks to be improved on. I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached. My fear is that someone will patent the work soon after I publish the paper and prevent this from happening. Should I patent the technology myself before publishing? Is there a better solution?
publications patents technology
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
20
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
13
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31
|
show 2 more comments
I am working on a paper in the field of AI. I've developed a new technology that allows many state of the art benchmarks to be improved on. I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached. My fear is that someone will patent the work soon after I publish the paper and prevent this from happening. Should I patent the technology myself before publishing? Is there a better solution?
publications patents technology
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
I am working on a paper in the field of AI. I've developed a new technology that allows many state of the art benchmarks to be improved on. I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached. My fear is that someone will patent the work soon after I publish the paper and prevent this from happening. Should I patent the technology myself before publishing? Is there a better solution?
publications patents technology
publications patents technology
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:19
brubrudsibrubrudsi
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
1511 silver badge3 bronze badges
20
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
13
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31
|
show 2 more comments
20
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
13
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31
20
20
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
13
13
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You need not patent your invention. The requirements of a patent are that it is new, useful and non-obvious. To another person your published work is considered prior art. If someone else tried to patent your work the patent office would reject it as anticipated.
Of course this assumes the patent office finds your work. The inventor could fail to disclose it and the patent office could fail to find it in search. In such a case you can typically submit your work to the relavent patent offices to have the patent/patent application invalidated/rejected.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
|
show 2 more comments
In countries I'm familiar with, there is the concept of prior art, and scientific publications are a common form of it. Basically, if you make this information public it would invalidate any patent filed based on it* after time of publication. If someone were to obtain such a patent, it can then be challenged by any competitor. So you should just make your results available, and as clearly described as possible. An arXiv posting may be a good idea to establish priority.
However, the public nature of arXiv isn't necessarily required. At least in the US "circulation at a relevant scientific conference" has been considered prior art in the past. It's less clear to me if a poster would provide sufficient evidence of prior art. You may want to consult a patent lawyer (your university likely has one) about that.
*It and (mostly) only it, that is. If someone were to make a significant invention on top of your results, that can still be patentable. But at that point it's no longer your invention.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached.
Why not put the code up on a public repository such as GitHub with the appropriate license? This will immediately void the need to patent it yourself, and significantly reduce the risk of someone successfully patenting it.
Regarding the actual patenting concerns, the other answers are good, but I'd like to add that if you do find out that someone has patented your work (such as was the case in this question), you are not alone, assuming that you work with a university. Your work is (partially) owned by the academic institution you developed it under, and they do not take kindly to their proprietary rights being infringed upon (to put it mildly). If you are legitimately concerned about your work being patented (or already encounter it as a patent somewhere), let your university handle it. They have lawyers that specialize in this, and they will make absolutely sure that the violators will have an unpleasant time.
Should I patent the technology myself before publishing?
If you do, then you'll need to involve your university (assuming that your work is part of a thesis/you are a faculty member). They will be very reluctant to have you make any part of the work publicly available for the same exact reasons I wrote above - they wouldn't want anyone claiming there is prior art, even if it's yours! Thus, patenting the work will do the exact opposite of what you intend to achieve.
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
add a comment
|
File an application yourself. Preferably both US and EU ("WO"). This is the best method. Unless you genuinely think you've got lightning in a bottle, you're better off weedling your company or school (IP dept) into funding and writing it. In all likelihood, you benefit more from the CV bullet and the plaque than from the commercial invention.
Publish it. In a good, well read journal.
Note: Method 1 is preferable. Method 2, or even just your poster, just "gives you an excuse to sue". But likely won't stop someone else from getting awarded a patent. (A lot of people have the wrong ideas about patents...the true test of patent commercial import comes during litigation.) Method 1 is much more pre-emptive.
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137276%2fhow-should-i-avoid-someone-patenting-technology-in-my-paper-poster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You need not patent your invention. The requirements of a patent are that it is new, useful and non-obvious. To another person your published work is considered prior art. If someone else tried to patent your work the patent office would reject it as anticipated.
Of course this assumes the patent office finds your work. The inventor could fail to disclose it and the patent office could fail to find it in search. In such a case you can typically submit your work to the relavent patent offices to have the patent/patent application invalidated/rejected.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
|
show 2 more comments
You need not patent your invention. The requirements of a patent are that it is new, useful and non-obvious. To another person your published work is considered prior art. If someone else tried to patent your work the patent office would reject it as anticipated.
Of course this assumes the patent office finds your work. The inventor could fail to disclose it and the patent office could fail to find it in search. In such a case you can typically submit your work to the relavent patent offices to have the patent/patent application invalidated/rejected.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
|
show 2 more comments
You need not patent your invention. The requirements of a patent are that it is new, useful and non-obvious. To another person your published work is considered prior art. If someone else tried to patent your work the patent office would reject it as anticipated.
Of course this assumes the patent office finds your work. The inventor could fail to disclose it and the patent office could fail to find it in search. In such a case you can typically submit your work to the relavent patent offices to have the patent/patent application invalidated/rejected.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
You need not patent your invention. The requirements of a patent are that it is new, useful and non-obvious. To another person your published work is considered prior art. If someone else tried to patent your work the patent office would reject it as anticipated.
Of course this assumes the patent office finds your work. The inventor could fail to disclose it and the patent office could fail to find it in search. In such a case you can typically submit your work to the relavent patent offices to have the patent/patent application invalidated/rejected.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
The Thrifty EngineerThe Thrifty Engineer
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
3952 silver badges8 bronze badges
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
|
show 2 more comments
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
11
11
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
The patent office is really bad about issuing invalid patents, so don't be surprised if your publication is not found (especially if published in a small, niche journal). There is now a "post-grant review" process, though, where anyone can file a request to review a recently-issued patent without having to sue the patent holder in court. This is the easiest way to get an improperly-issued patent killed, but you only have 9 months after the patent is issued to do it.
– bta
Sep 17 at 21:53
12
12
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
There is actually a stackexchange where patent examiners ask us, stackexchange experts, if a patent they are currently examining is "obvious" or has prior art. I've submitted prior art myself when one question involves a technology I worked with years ago. Granted not all USPTO examiners use the site but for those that do they need your help. See patents.stackexchange.com
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:21
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
Here's an example call for prior art - patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5857/…
– slebetman
Sep 18 at 9:23
1
1
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
In addition, especially since the OP believes the research will be useful in the field, publicize it. That helps both the basic dissemination of the technique and the likelihood that it will be identified as prior art.
– chrylis -on strike-
Sep 18 at 10:20
2
2
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
@vsz: Laws vary by country, but even if the patent is granted, it still has to be defended against someone who decides to infringe it. Just because a silly patent exists doesn't mean the patent holder will be able to enforce it in court.
– Oddthinking
Sep 18 at 16:40
|
show 2 more comments
In countries I'm familiar with, there is the concept of prior art, and scientific publications are a common form of it. Basically, if you make this information public it would invalidate any patent filed based on it* after time of publication. If someone were to obtain such a patent, it can then be challenged by any competitor. So you should just make your results available, and as clearly described as possible. An arXiv posting may be a good idea to establish priority.
However, the public nature of arXiv isn't necessarily required. At least in the US "circulation at a relevant scientific conference" has been considered prior art in the past. It's less clear to me if a poster would provide sufficient evidence of prior art. You may want to consult a patent lawyer (your university likely has one) about that.
*It and (mostly) only it, that is. If someone were to make a significant invention on top of your results, that can still be patentable. But at that point it's no longer your invention.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
add a comment
|
In countries I'm familiar with, there is the concept of prior art, and scientific publications are a common form of it. Basically, if you make this information public it would invalidate any patent filed based on it* after time of publication. If someone were to obtain such a patent, it can then be challenged by any competitor. So you should just make your results available, and as clearly described as possible. An arXiv posting may be a good idea to establish priority.
However, the public nature of arXiv isn't necessarily required. At least in the US "circulation at a relevant scientific conference" has been considered prior art in the past. It's less clear to me if a poster would provide sufficient evidence of prior art. You may want to consult a patent lawyer (your university likely has one) about that.
*It and (mostly) only it, that is. If someone were to make a significant invention on top of your results, that can still be patentable. But at that point it's no longer your invention.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
add a comment
|
In countries I'm familiar with, there is the concept of prior art, and scientific publications are a common form of it. Basically, if you make this information public it would invalidate any patent filed based on it* after time of publication. If someone were to obtain such a patent, it can then be challenged by any competitor. So you should just make your results available, and as clearly described as possible. An arXiv posting may be a good idea to establish priority.
However, the public nature of arXiv isn't necessarily required. At least in the US "circulation at a relevant scientific conference" has been considered prior art in the past. It's less clear to me if a poster would provide sufficient evidence of prior art. You may want to consult a patent lawyer (your university likely has one) about that.
*It and (mostly) only it, that is. If someone were to make a significant invention on top of your results, that can still be patentable. But at that point it's no longer your invention.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
In countries I'm familiar with, there is the concept of prior art, and scientific publications are a common form of it. Basically, if you make this information public it would invalidate any patent filed based on it* after time of publication. If someone were to obtain such a patent, it can then be challenged by any competitor. So you should just make your results available, and as clearly described as possible. An arXiv posting may be a good idea to establish priority.
However, the public nature of arXiv isn't necessarily required. At least in the US "circulation at a relevant scientific conference" has been considered prior art in the past. It's less clear to me if a poster would provide sufficient evidence of prior art. You may want to consult a patent lawyer (your university likely has one) about that.
*It and (mostly) only it, that is. If someone were to make a significant invention on top of your results, that can still be patentable. But at that point it's no longer your invention.
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 13:36
AnyonAnyon
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
12.1k4 gold badges47 silver badges54 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached.
Why not put the code up on a public repository such as GitHub with the appropriate license? This will immediately void the need to patent it yourself, and significantly reduce the risk of someone successfully patenting it.
Regarding the actual patenting concerns, the other answers are good, but I'd like to add that if you do find out that someone has patented your work (such as was the case in this question), you are not alone, assuming that you work with a university. Your work is (partially) owned by the academic institution you developed it under, and they do not take kindly to their proprietary rights being infringed upon (to put it mildly). If you are legitimately concerned about your work being patented (or already encounter it as a patent somewhere), let your university handle it. They have lawyers that specialize in this, and they will make absolutely sure that the violators will have an unpleasant time.
Should I patent the technology myself before publishing?
If you do, then you'll need to involve your university (assuming that your work is part of a thesis/you are a faculty member). They will be very reluctant to have you make any part of the work publicly available for the same exact reasons I wrote above - they wouldn't want anyone claiming there is prior art, even if it's yours! Thus, patenting the work will do the exact opposite of what you intend to achieve.
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
add a comment
|
I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached.
Why not put the code up on a public repository such as GitHub with the appropriate license? This will immediately void the need to patent it yourself, and significantly reduce the risk of someone successfully patenting it.
Regarding the actual patenting concerns, the other answers are good, but I'd like to add that if you do find out that someone has patented your work (such as was the case in this question), you are not alone, assuming that you work with a university. Your work is (partially) owned by the academic institution you developed it under, and they do not take kindly to their proprietary rights being infringed upon (to put it mildly). If you are legitimately concerned about your work being patented (or already encounter it as a patent somewhere), let your university handle it. They have lawyers that specialize in this, and they will make absolutely sure that the violators will have an unpleasant time.
Should I patent the technology myself before publishing?
If you do, then you'll need to involve your university (assuming that your work is part of a thesis/you are a faculty member). They will be very reluctant to have you make any part of the work publicly available for the same exact reasons I wrote above - they wouldn't want anyone claiming there is prior art, even if it's yours! Thus, patenting the work will do the exact opposite of what you intend to achieve.
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
add a comment
|
I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached.
Why not put the code up on a public repository such as GitHub with the appropriate license? This will immediately void the need to patent it yourself, and significantly reduce the risk of someone successfully patenting it.
Regarding the actual patenting concerns, the other answers are good, but I'd like to add that if you do find out that someone has patented your work (such as was the case in this question), you are not alone, assuming that you work with a university. Your work is (partially) owned by the academic institution you developed it under, and they do not take kindly to their proprietary rights being infringed upon (to put it mildly). If you are legitimately concerned about your work being patented (or already encounter it as a patent somewhere), let your university handle it. They have lawyers that specialize in this, and they will make absolutely sure that the violators will have an unpleasant time.
Should I patent the technology myself before publishing?
If you do, then you'll need to involve your university (assuming that your work is part of a thesis/you are a faculty member). They will be very reluctant to have you make any part of the work publicly available for the same exact reasons I wrote above - they wouldn't want anyone claiming there is prior art, even if it's yours! Thus, patenting the work will do the exact opposite of what you intend to achieve.
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
I want to make sure that when I publish the paper, anyone/company that wants to use the technology can do so free of charge with no strings attached.
Why not put the code up on a public repository such as GitHub with the appropriate license? This will immediately void the need to patent it yourself, and significantly reduce the risk of someone successfully patenting it.
Regarding the actual patenting concerns, the other answers are good, but I'd like to add that if you do find out that someone has patented your work (such as was the case in this question), you are not alone, assuming that you work with a university. Your work is (partially) owned by the academic institution you developed it under, and they do not take kindly to their proprietary rights being infringed upon (to put it mildly). If you are legitimately concerned about your work being patented (or already encounter it as a patent somewhere), let your university handle it. They have lawyers that specialize in this, and they will make absolutely sure that the violators will have an unpleasant time.
Should I patent the technology myself before publishing?
If you do, then you'll need to involve your university (assuming that your work is part of a thesis/you are a faculty member). They will be very reluctant to have you make any part of the work publicly available for the same exact reasons I wrote above - they wouldn't want anyone claiming there is prior art, even if it's yours! Thus, patenting the work will do the exact opposite of what you intend to achieve.
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 14:38
SparkSpark
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
15.9k8 gold badges33 silver badges55 bronze badges
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
add a comment
|
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
1
1
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
Putting the code on GitHub adds no further security than publishing a paper would provide. In fact, GitHub is a really bad way of proving prior art since it’s hard/impossible to prove a publication date from it (commit timestamps are modifiable and, at any rate, aren’t publication times!). You can try to submit it as evidence of prior art but a competent patent attorney won’t be happy with it, and a patent examiner might dismiss it outright. Furthermore, the choice of license is irrelevant for patentability.
– Konrad Rudolph
Sep 18 at 14:48
add a comment
|
File an application yourself. Preferably both US and EU ("WO"). This is the best method. Unless you genuinely think you've got lightning in a bottle, you're better off weedling your company or school (IP dept) into funding and writing it. In all likelihood, you benefit more from the CV bullet and the plaque than from the commercial invention.
Publish it. In a good, well read journal.
Note: Method 1 is preferable. Method 2, or even just your poster, just "gives you an excuse to sue". But likely won't stop someone else from getting awarded a patent. (A lot of people have the wrong ideas about patents...the true test of patent commercial import comes during litigation.) Method 1 is much more pre-emptive.
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
add a comment
|
File an application yourself. Preferably both US and EU ("WO"). This is the best method. Unless you genuinely think you've got lightning in a bottle, you're better off weedling your company or school (IP dept) into funding and writing it. In all likelihood, you benefit more from the CV bullet and the plaque than from the commercial invention.
Publish it. In a good, well read journal.
Note: Method 1 is preferable. Method 2, or even just your poster, just "gives you an excuse to sue". But likely won't stop someone else from getting awarded a patent. (A lot of people have the wrong ideas about patents...the true test of patent commercial import comes during litigation.) Method 1 is much more pre-emptive.
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
add a comment
|
File an application yourself. Preferably both US and EU ("WO"). This is the best method. Unless you genuinely think you've got lightning in a bottle, you're better off weedling your company or school (IP dept) into funding and writing it. In all likelihood, you benefit more from the CV bullet and the plaque than from the commercial invention.
Publish it. In a good, well read journal.
Note: Method 1 is preferable. Method 2, or even just your poster, just "gives you an excuse to sue". But likely won't stop someone else from getting awarded a patent. (A lot of people have the wrong ideas about patents...the true test of patent commercial import comes during litigation.) Method 1 is much more pre-emptive.
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
File an application yourself. Preferably both US and EU ("WO"). This is the best method. Unless you genuinely think you've got lightning in a bottle, you're better off weedling your company or school (IP dept) into funding and writing it. In all likelihood, you benefit more from the CV bullet and the plaque than from the commercial invention.
Publish it. In a good, well read journal.
Note: Method 1 is preferable. Method 2, or even just your poster, just "gives you an excuse to sue". But likely won't stop someone else from getting awarded a patent. (A lot of people have the wrong ideas about patents...the true test of patent commercial import comes during litigation.) Method 1 is much more pre-emptive.
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 16:03
guestguest
92 bronze badges
92 bronze badges
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
add a comment
|
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
2
2
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
Method 1 is also much more expensive.
– cbeleites supports Monica
Sep 18 at 10:06
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137276%2fhow-should-i-avoid-someone-patenting-technology-in-my-paper-poster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
20
If it's valuable tech, you should talk to the IP office at your institution, or a personal attorney. You should not depend on input from well-meaning internet contributors
– Scott Seidman
Sep 17 at 13:50
13
Be careful with the advice given here. Especially in the US. I think the concept of prior art has been weakened recently. The USPTO grants rights to the "First to File" successfully, not necessarily the inventor. If an idea has been exploited previously it counts as prior art (I think, but IANAL). But having the idea may not count for much. As @ScottSeidman suggests, talk to a patent lawyer for correct advice rather than speculation which may be obsolete. Law varies by place and by time. Beware.
– Buffy
Sep 17 at 14:35
@Buffy - First to File does not mean you can take somebody else's presentation and file on their specific idea (note that it needs to be specific though - extensions to it are just fine!). It just means that establishing just when something was conceived is not needed anymore.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:10
@JonCuster, ideas, as such, have little protection. You don't patent ideas.
– Buffy
Sep 18 at 17:26
@Buffy - true, 'idea' was not the correct word. The point still stands on First to File vs prior art though.
– Jon Custer
Sep 18 at 17:31