Patent Question

KpsCowley

This is to settle a workplace argument.

The situation is: Person X invents a new product and uses it for he own practical purposes. Person Y decides to steal the idea and patent it, would that be legal? Is it a matter of the first person to get a patent through gets the rights to the product? Or does the original creator always have the upper hand?

Anyone shed some light? Thanks

alias no.9

KpsCowley wrote: »

This is to settle a workplace argument.

The situation is: Person X invents a new product and uses it for he own practical purposes. Person Y decides to steal the idea and patent it, would that be legal? Is it a matter of the first person to get a patent through gets the rights to the product? Or does the original creator always have the upper hand?

Anyone shed some light? Thanks

If prior art can be demonstrated, the patent will be invalid.

Yorker

KpsCowley wrote: »

This is to settle a workplace argument.

The situation is: Person X invents a new product and uses it for he own practical purposes. Person Y decides to steal the idea and patent it, would that be legal? Is it a matter of the first person to get a patent through gets the rights to the product? Or does the original creator always have the upper hand?

Anyone shed some light? Thanks

how can x prove y stole it that y did not invent it? you say no patent.So the original creator is who ,legally? One has a patent and the other says he invented it.. has he any evidence did anyone see him use if for his own practical purpose? i invented coke and the coca cola company stole it

This is not legal advice

amen

you hopefully have notebooks proving research, trial and error etc

Some countries have first to file and others first to invent.

Manach

AFAIK, the US was the main State with the first to invent having priority instead of having first to get it approved by the patent office: but this us being changed to bring it in line with other countries and the EU's UPC recognising first to be granted a patent.

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

All countries are now on a first to file except for the US which is first inventor to file.

The patent does give you a right in the traditional sense. It merely allows you to exclude others from using the invention or exploiting it for 20 years.
If someone invents a product that they have not patented and someone else patents it, there is very little that can be done. The burden is on the challenger to prove that they were the rightful creator of the patent. Very difficult to meet the standard. In general there is a very high threshold to meet when challenging a patent. There are presumptions in law that the patent is valid. In your case person X must show that they invented the product and it was stolen. Patents are rarely ruled invalid.
There is a criminal element to the patent situation you have described.

If you want to engage in some legal conspiracy theory regarding patents read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

Labarbapostiza

Yorker wrote: »

how can x prove y stole it that y did not invent it?

The judge is usually more impressed by the party who spends the most on their legal representation. It's a little like the story of Solomon in the bible, with the two women fighting over the child. Solomon was more impressed by the woman who spent the most on her legal representation, on the basis that if it wasn't the woman's baby, she wouldn't have spent so much.

You also have to bribe the judge......but you get your barrister to do that. You know the bit where they go "M'Lord....may I approach the bench".....That's where cash changes hands.....

Labarbapostiza

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

The burden is on the challenger to prove that they were the rightful creator of the patent.

The burden is huge, and it's just as huge if you have the patented filed.

I know someone who invented a component that's still in use in all computers. He had the patent filed (which is expensive) and he was taking his electronics around, so it had been seen in the industry.

A major manufacturer posted him their version. To defend a patent against a major manufacturer, requires millions, with no guarantee you will win the case. If you don't have the cash to fight the case then that's it. You really need the backing of a major manufacturer to take on another one.

Then there's patent trolling. They're spurious legal cases the defender, who's often a manufacturer pays off to avoid costs and delays. Major manufacturers also patent troll each other. You would have seen this with some of the major mobile phone manufacturers recently. The objective there is to delay products reaching the market. Corporate patent lawyers are Just Call Saul types, but who work for major corporations and not major drug traffickers.

Yorker

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The burden is huge, and it's just as huge if you have the patented filed.

I know someone who invented a component that's still in use in all computers. He had the patent filed (which is expensive) and he was taking his electronics around, so it had been seen in the industry.

A major manufacturer posted him their version. To defend a patent against a major manufacturer, requires millions, with no guarantee you will win the case. If you don't have the cash to fight the case then that's it. You really need the backing of a major manufacturer to take on another one.

Then there's patent trolling. They're spurious legal cases the defender, who's often a manufacturer pays off to avoid costs and delays. Major manufacturers also patent troll each other. You would have seen this with some of the major mobile phone manufacturers recently. The objective there is to delay products reaching the market. Corporate patent lawyers are Just Call Saul types, but who work for major corporations and not major drug traffickers.

why did they do that?

Yorker

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

All countries are now on a first to file except for the US which is first inventor to file.

The patent does give you a right in the traditional sense. It merely allows you to exclude others from using the invention or exploiting it for 20 years.
If someone invents a product that they have not patented and someone else patents it, there is very little that can be done. The burden is on the challenger to prove that they were the rightful creator of the patent. Very difficult to meet the standard. In general there is a very high threshold to meet when challenging a patent. There are presumptions in law that the patent is valid. In your case person X must show that they invented the product and it was stolen. Patents are rarely ruled invalid.
There is a criminal element to the patent situation you have described.

If you want to engage in some legal conspiracy theory regarding patents read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

what i meant

Labarbapostiza

Yorker wrote: »

why did they do that?

To see if he would sue.

Fighting to protect a patent is very expensive business.