The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jul 15th, 2019, 8:44pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Novelty
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   102(f) and Reverse Engineering
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: 102(f) and Reverse Engineering  (Read 2561 times)
biopico
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 434
Re: 102(f) and Reverse Engineering
« Reply #5 on: Mar 3rd, 2007, 1:01pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Well, what about this interpretation?
 
Coke-trade secret
Person A doesn't know about the content of the said trade secret, but invented a process of making Coke having the same or similar taste as Coke and applied for a patent.
 
How do we know whether the said trade secret and the said patent application would be identical and/or similar reaching to the arguable point of whether the person A knew or had prior knowledge about the said trade secret without assumption?
 
I chose to have a lousy thought.
IP Logged

Registered Patent Agent Specializing in All Areas of Biotechnology
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: 102(f) and Reverse Engineering
« Reply #6 on: Mar 3rd, 2007, 1:15pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 3rd, 2007, 12:51pm, Wiscagent wrote:
So the invention / discovery distinction may not be important.  The typical example is the person who finds and purifies a naturally occurring material; that person may have a patentable “invention” even though it is arguably a “discovery.”

The discovery/invention distinction is how I frame exclusions to elligible subject matter (natural phenoms, mathematical algorithms, etc.) in my own mind.  In there, it works.
 
For what it's worth, I think that the purification is something added that didn't exist and therefore transcends discovery and becomes invention.  Of course, every act of invention includes some act of discovery, but it's not the discovery that's patentable -- it's the invention that sprung from the discovery.
 
Like I said, it works in my mind.  It might not work anywhere else.  Many things are like that.
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Wiscagent
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 843
Re: 102(f) and Reverse Engineering
« Reply #7 on: Mar 3rd, 2007, 1:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

"How do we know whether the said trade secret and the said patent application would be identical ..."
 
If the trade secret was truely a "secret", then neither the applicant for patent nor the PTO would know about the secret.  So assuming that everything else was in order, a patent could be granted.
 
If and when the patent was asserted, there would certainly be an effort by the defense to demonstrate that the secret formula was invented, sold and used before the critical date.  If the patent was asserted against the original manufacturer of the formula, the defense might focus on the prior use defense rather than try to invalidate the patent.
IP Logged

Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board