|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, January 22 2013 @ 08:30 PM EST |
| The date is important because outside of the US there is not the one year grace
period between first public disclosure and when you can file an application. For
US-only patents it would be possible to show off a new product before filing the
application or even to sell an early copy and not worry that it might disclose
something that you are about to file for as long as it is less than a year from
the date you plan to file. Making a mistake with that would be fatal to a patent
outside of the US. I bet that Samsung is hoping that Apple did make such a
mistake and is seeking disclosure that could turn up evidence of such a
mistake.
Excerpts from
Preserving Your Patent Rights
The U.S. patent law system is
among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your
invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to
filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application
within one year of the publication or offer for
sale.
Most countries are stricter than the U.S. They
require that a "priority patent application" be filed before the first public
written or oral disclosure.
Simply announcing that
you have made an invention is not a "public disclosure" of the invention. In
order to act as a patent bar, the disclosure must be "enabling"--that is, it
must teach someone "of ordinary skill in the art" how to actually duplicate the
invention.
An offer for sale, even if it does not teach someone how to make
the invention, is a bar to patentability (after the grace period) in the U.S.,
but is not a bar in Europe if it does not "enable".
In the U.S., as stated above, you have a one year
grace period after the publication in which to file the patent.
In Europe, a
public disclosure is an absolute bar to patentability.
Japan gives a six
month grace period for filing a patent if the public disclosure was a
presentation at a scientific meeting.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 12:19 AM EST |
They might have delivered some review samples with
restrictions on review release dates to be when it launched.
Apple doesn't seem to do too much of that but that's a long
time from announcement to release.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 04:53 AM EST |
Not evidence as its one step removed but surely being on a pre-order constitutes
some kind of offer to sale?
http://www.iphonefaq.org/archives/9792[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 05:28 AM EST |
They reported selling 27 K units for 5 M "iPhone and Related
Products and Services" for Q3 2007.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q307data_sum.pdf[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 05:37 AM EST |
Wikipedia "History of the iPhone" points to the similarities
with a "previous touch-screen portable device, the Newton
MessagePad." It wouldn't by any change...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 24 2013 @ 12:40 AM EST |
The key question isn't necessarily when Apple allowed the phones to be sold to
the consumer. If Apple sold the phones to AT&T, that is the date of first
sale. If Apple sold the phones FOB origination, it would mean that the phone
ownership transferred to AT&T the moment they left Apple's dock. Given that
AT&T had to have received the phones no later than the day before so they
could be sure of having them when the stores opened, they had to have been
shipped two days before. Then, the key is whether the terms of the sale were FOB
origination or FOB termination (or the corresponding Incoterm for international
sales).
Companies selling products generally prefer FOB origination, as they can book
the revenue when the product leaves the dock, and theft/damage is the problem of
the receiver.
AT&T may have had a non-disclosure in place with Apple which protected
patentability in the US, but I'm not sure whether those same provisions apply in
Japan. It is also possible that the terms of the contract with AT&T stated
that title to the phones did not pass to AT&T until the 29'th, preventing
issues about the patent. But, this is what discovery is for.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
