Patent Knowledge Quiz

The following 20 questions are designed to demonstrate key points about patents (see Top 10
things to know about patents) in a contextual framework. It is by way of encounters with real-life
situations that the facts and theory of patent law and procedures are learned.
These particular questions focus mainly on patent standards and minimum requirements as set
out in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Aspects Agreement, better known as TRIPs, an
international treaty acceded to by over 140 countries. Implementation of the standards and
requirements occur by legislation in member countries, and as such, patent law varies somewhat
among the members. Historically, the patent law system of the United States exhibits some
substantial differences to the system of Europe and many other countries. Because the United
States has one of the largest and most established patent systems, some of the questions are
designed to illustrate these differences.
The original recipients of this quiz were enthusiastic about it as a learning tool. We hope you
enjoy it, learn from it, and improve your own skills.
Question A:
A patent gives the owner the right to:
1. make her invention
2. commercialize her invention
3. publish the results of tests using the invention
4. keep others from making her invention
5. collect a monetary award from the government
6. 1 and 2
7. all of the above
Answer
Question B:
A policy (or policies) behind the patent system is:
1. to encourage an inventor to disclose an invention by granting exclusive rights over the
invention to the inventor.
2. to benefit the public by limiting the scope and term of the exclusive rights granted to an
inventor.
3. to benefit the public through encouraging innovation by publishing a full disclosure of
the technical details of the invention.
4. to benefit the public through guaranteeing that the inventor can commercialize his/her
invention
5. 1 and 2
6. 1, 2 and 3
7. 2, 3 and 4
Answer
Question C:
The minimum requirements for obtaining a patent are that the invention must be:
1. novel
2. non-obvious or include an inventive step
3. useful or capable of industrial application
4. 1 and 2
5. 1 and 2 and 3
Answer
Question D:
An inventor was awarded a patent in the U.K. on a method for selecting transformed plants and
has practiced the mentioned method only in the U.K. Six months later, another person who
independently invented the same method in Australia wants to obtain a patent in Australia. She:
1. could do it without major problems
2. would not be able to do it because the granted patent was published in the U.K.
3. would not be able to do it because the method is used in the U.K.
4. 2 and 3
5. none of the above
Answer
Question E:
The method mentioned above was not patented or published anywhere but has been used in the
U.K. and only in the U.K. since 1997. Another person who independently invented the same
method in Australia in 2001 wants to obtain a patent in Australia. She:
1. could do it without major problems
2. would not be able to do it because the invented method has been used in the U.K.
3. could do it only if the method has not been described in a written publication anywhere in
the world
4. 1 and 3
5. none of the above
Answer
Question F:
A patent application is filed on 1 January 1999. The application is published 18 months later on 1
July 2000 and granted on 30 May 2001. The patent is valid until:
1. 30 May 2021; 20 years from the grant date of the patent
2. 1 July 2020; 20 years from the publication date of the application
3. 1 January 2019; 20 years from the filing date of the application
4. some other date
Answer
Question G:
A patent awarded by the patent office in Japan is valid in:
1. Indonesia and its territories
2. Japan and its territories
3. All ASEAN countries
4. All countries that adhere to TRIPS
Answer
Question H:
Assuming an applicant has indicated a desire to have a patent valid in all European countries and
elects to have the application examined by the European Patent Office, a regional patent office,
the patent that is ultimately granted is valid:
1. automatically in all countries that are members of the European Patent Office
2. automatically in all European countries, regardless of whether they are member
3. upon registration in each country that supports the European Patent Office
Answer
Question I:
An international patent:
1. is the result of an international application filed under the international Patent
Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
2. is valid in all member countries of the PCT
3. is valid only in the PCT countries designated by the applicant upon filing the application
4. 1 and 2
5. 1 and 3
6. there is no such thing as an international patent
Answer
Question J:
You have a granted patent in the United States and in Australia on using GUSPlus, a very
sensitive detection system for identifying transformed plants. A couple of colleagues of yours
are working at an Australian non-profit research institute and another is working at Cornell
University in the United States, and they want to use the GUSPlus system for research purposes
to identify transgenic plants. They can:
1. use it freely without the need to tell you
2. use it, but they should tell you first
3. use it only if they get a license or some other form of permission from you
4. cannot use it at all
Answer
Question K:
You are a farmer growing Bt-transgenic soybeans in Argentina and Humongous Company, a
very large multi-national agricultural company, has a valid patent in the United States, but not in
Argentina, that claims Bt-transgenic soybeans. You will be:
1. infringing Humongous' patent rights by growing Bt-transgenic soybeans in Argentina
2. infringing Humongous' patent rights by growing Bt-transgenic soybeans and saving seeds
for next sowing season in Argentina
3. infringing Humongous' patent rights by exporting Bt-transgenic soybeans to the U.S.
4. none of the above
Answer
Question L:
A published patent specification:
1. is always a granted patent and is enforceable
2. is always an application for a patent and is not enforceable
3. is always an application for a patent and is enforceable
4. could be either a granted patent or a patent application
Answer
Question M:
A PCT publication is:
1. always a granted patent
2. sometimes a granted patent
3. always a patent application
Answer
Question N:
If you want to know what is actually covered by a granted patent, you will look at:
1. the title
2. the title and the abstract
3. the abstract
4. the detailed description of the invention and the drawings
5. the detailed description of the invention and the claims
6. the claims
Answer
Question O:
A published application in Brazil describes the cloning of glycosyltransferases, enzymes that
transfer sugar moieties, from five different bacteria including Staphylococcus, Pneumococcus,
Arthrobacter, Clavibacter, and Thermobacter, and teaches how to obtain genes encoding the
same enzymes from other bacterial genera. The only claim recites:
"An isolated DNA sequence encoding a glycosyltransferase isolated from Staphylococcus".
You need a license before you can use DNA encoding the following in Brazil:
1. a glycosyltransferase from Staphylococcus
2. a glycosyltransferase from Haemophilus
3. a glycosyltransferase from Pneumococcus
4. 1 and 3
5. none of the above
Answer
Question P:
The publication mentioned above is a Brazilian granted patent. You need a license before you
can use DNA encoding the following in Brazil:
1. a glycosyltransferase from Staphylococcus
2. a glycosyltransferase from Haemophilus
3. a glycosyltransferase from Pneumococcus
4. 1 and 3
5. none of the above
Answer
Question Q:
Two independent inventors come up with the same patentable invention and each of them
decides to file a patent application in Canada, Germany and the United States. Who would get
the patents?
1. in each country, the first one to file the patent application
2. in Canada, the first to file the patent application, and in Germany and the United States,
the first to invent the invention
3. in Germany, the first to file the patent application, and in Canada and the United States,
the first to invent the invention
4. in Canada and Germany, the first to file the patent application, and in the United States,
the first to invent the invention
5. in each country, the first to invent
Answer
Question R:
If you infringe a patent:
1. you go to jail if caught
2. you pay a large fine to the government
3. the owner of the patent will sue you in a court
4. nothing may happen
5. 2 and 3 are both possible
6. 3 and 4 are both possible
Answer
Question S:
You and a couple of colleagues are the inventors of a new drug that successfully tackles stomach
cancer and has few unwanted side effects. Your colleagues decide to publish the methodology
used to develop the drug in a prestigious scientific journal. The article is published in January
2001 and the research results are presented in two international conferences in March 2001 with
great success. In the meantime, your team realizes that it would be worthwhile obtaining a patent
for the new drug. A patent specification is diligently prepared and filed in the United States and
with the European Patent Office in April 2001. Which of the following scenarios is the most
likely:
1. because the invented drug fulfills the criteria for patentability, your team is awarded the
patent in both jurisdictions.
2. because the invention was published before the filing of the patent application, your team
is denied a patent in both jurisdictions.
3. because the invention was published within one year of the filing of the patent
application, your team is allowed a patent in both jurisdictions.
4. because the invention was published within one year of the filing of the patent
application, your team is denied a patent in Europe, but granted in the United States
Answer
Question T:
A patent on a method to heal wounds using turmeric has been granted in both Europe and in the
U.S. in January 2001. You, as a person not involved at all in the alleged invention, have written
evidence proving that the method was well-known not only in the mentioned places, but also in
other parts of the world. You find out about the patent in August 2001. In the present
circumstances you could:
1. file an opposition against the granted patent before the patent offices in both the United
States and in Europe alleging lack of novelty
2. file an opposition against the granted patent before the United States patent office
alleging lack of novelty
3. file an opposition against the granted patent before the European patent office alleging
lack of novelty
Answer
Question U:
The following is a good reason to search for patents and patent applications with the CAMBIA
Patent Lens search:
1. for scientific information
2. for information on freedom to operate
3. to see if your idea is patentable (novel and non-obvious)
4. to see what your competitor is up to
5. 2, 3, and 4
 6. all of the above
Answer
Back to Patent Tutorials

Patent Top Ten

1. There is NO such thing as an international patent.

There are "international applications" called PCT applications that need to be converted into
national applications within a period of maximum 30 months in order to obtain a patent. Each
country in which a national application is lodged has its own process and criteria for
patentability.

More information

2. Patent applications are NOT the same as granted patents.

A patent application undergoes an examination process to see if it meets the patentability

requirements of the country it is lodged in. During this process, the claims are often amended.
Thus, a patent application contains claims reciting what an applicant hopes to get patent
protection for, but the claims in the granted patent may be different, and only an issued patent
contains claims that have legal protection.

More information

3. Patents are examined, they are NOT peer-reviewed.

Patent examiners assess an invention against the relevant prior art publicly available in the
field of the invention to determine whether it fulfills the patentability criteria. The
requirements for patentability are not the same as the criteria used for publishing research
results in a scientific journal. They may appear to be more lenient, or much stricter. The most
important criteria for patenting generally are whether the invention is enabled by the
description submitted, and whether it appears to have been described or obvious from what
was already in the public domain before filing (the subject for a publication may be quite
 impactful without fulfilling the patentability criteria).

More information

4. The applicant or assignee of a patent may not be the actual holder of

the patent rights.

Patents are commercially tradeable assets, and the patent rights can be assigned or licensed to
third parties, acquired in mergers etc. The holders of licenses or assignments, i.e. the actual
rights to use the patents, are typically not listed in the national patent databases. In addition,
the patent owner may have changed since the patent published, although because ownership
(assignment) is typically recorded at patent offices the current owner can be determined. If
you want to use a patented technology, it is a good idea to look in the patent office on-line
records to establish the name of actual rights-holder.

More information

5. Patents have a limited lifetime.

In most countries now, a patent lasts for 20 years from the date of filing, provided required
maintenance fees are paid. This period is the monopoly period granted to the owner of the
patent.

More information

6. Patents are rights with geographic boundaries.

Patents are granted by the government of a country or jurisdiction and the rights are valid
only within its territorial boundaries.

More information

7. Infringement of a patent is generally a legal matter between parties.

 In most countries, infringement is a civil wrong, where a person's rights are violated and is up
to the offended party to sue for damages or seek other legal remedies. In some countries,
however, infringement of a patent is an act committed against the state and may be
punishable by fines and imprisonment.

More information

8. Claims define the limits of a patented invention and the boundaries of

the patent rights....

These rights and limits are not defined by the titles, not the abstract, not the detailed
description of the invention, not the examples and figures.

More information

9. A patent does not guarantee income to the owner.

As is the case for any tradeable asset, a patent can be promoted, offered in the market and
commercialized actively in order to generate income for its owners. Many patents do not
generate any income, and if this is the case, sometimes owners choose to allow them to lapse
early. If you are interested in using the technology described in a patent, it is a good idea to
check whether the patent is still in force before contacting the owner for a license.

More information

10. Patent rights are exclusionary rights.

Patent rights can be used to stop other parties from using, making, selling, offering to sell,
and importing the protected invention if the other parties do not have authorization from the
holder of the patent rights. They don't necessarily give a right to use the technology if other
patents or laws prevent it.

More information

Back to Patent Tutorials

A free public resource for patent system navigation worldwide.An initiative of Cambia
Top of Form

Search

Search this website

Bottom of Form

• Home
• Patent Search & Tools
○ Patent Search
○ Patent Search Help
○ Blast & Sequence Search
○ Patent Lens FAQs
• Patent Landscapes
○ Explore Patent Landscapes
○ Sequence Project (BLAST)
○ Patent Landscapes FAQs
• Intellectual Property
○ Patent Tutorials and FAQs
○ IP Policies and Practices
○ Patent Laws Around the World
• Media Centre
○ Cambia, BiOS, Patent Lens In The News
○ Press Releases
○ Audio & Video
• About Us
○ Our People
○ Careers
○ Contact Us

United States
(published on or after 2 Jan 2001)

Exemplary publ. Code meaning

no.

US first publication of application

2003/0157684
A1

US second or subsequent publication of application,

2004/0038291 requested by applicant
A2

US correction of error(s) in previous publication (either

2004/0185440 A1 or A2); error(s) made by USPTO
A9

US 6,207,883 B1 patent which was not published as a patent

application

US 6,791,013 B2 patent which was prior published as a patent

application (US 2002/0068359 A1)

US 6,197,585 C1 re-examined patent; claims may be unchanged,

amended or canceled; appear to only be published in
Official Gazette (OG)
re-exams are requested by applicant or third party

US RE038,571 re-issued patent; claims may be broadened or

E1 narrowed; re-issuances are requested by applicant

US first publication of plant patent application

2004/0177423
P1

US PP15,114 P2 plant patent which was not published as a patent

application

US PPnn,nnn P3 plant patent which was published as a patent

application

(published prior to 2 Jan 2001)

Assigned code^ Code meaning

“A” patent

“B” re-examined patent

“E” re-issued patent

“P” plant patent

^ kind codes did not appear on the face of patents

Europe
Europe follows WIPO standard ST.50 for corrections.

Exemplary Code meaning

publ no.

A1 patent application published with the search report

A2 patent application published without the search report

A3 search report published with the front page (bibliometric

data) of the application

A8 correction of front page data of A1 or A2; only front

page re-published

A9 correction of application; complete reprint of document

A1 or A2 or A3

B1 granted patent

B2 amended specification (e.g., claims) of granted patent

B8 correction of front page data of B1 or B2; only front

page published

B9 correction of application;

Wn* indicates that the correction affects all types of media

and products (electronic, paper, etc); a supplementary
code used in combination with the original code (e.g.,
W1A1); number “n” indicates the number of corrections
(e.g., 1 is first correction; 2 is second correction)

*The “W” codes are printed on the front page of the document. As they are confusing,
hypothetical examples follow:
The following events occur in the order listed.
A patent application is published as EP 999999 A1
An error is discovered in the front page data.
The front page is republished in paper and on CD as an A8 type of publication and the front page
shows EP 999999 A8; in the field (15) Corrected information, the code W1A1 is shown.
Errors are discovered in the claims.
The entire specification is republished in paper and on CD as an A9 type and front page shows
EP 999999 A9; in the field (15) Corrected information, the code W2A1 is shown.
WIPO (encompasses PCT applications)
An application filed at WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) is published 18 months
after the earliest related patent application is filed in the home country.
A Patent Examiner at the WIPO receiving office performs a prior art search and sends a search
report to the applicant. The search report is also published, either as an attachment to the patent
application document or separately – depending on whether or not the search report is ready at
the time of publication of the application.

Exemplary publ Code meaning

no.

WO 1999/001560 patent application published with the search report

A1

WO 2001/073119 patent application published without the search

A2 report

WO 2001/073119 search report published with the front page

A3 (bibliometric data) of the application

Republications
If an application is re-published to make corrections or amendments on the first page, in the body
of application, or in the claims, the kind codes (A1, A2, A3) are appended with further
designators.
Note that in the PCT Gazette (www.wipo.int/ipdl/en) publication of an A3 document is
considered to be a republication and is marked as such in the results list.
A corrected application will have the mark CORRECTED VERSION at the top of the first page
of the publication. It will also note on the front page where information can be found about the
corrections. See for example, WO 2001/073119.

Kind Code Code meaning

pre-June
2001

A1L an A1 application, republished with modified+ claims

compared to the A1

A1M an A1 application, republished with modified first page

or text

A2L an A2 application, republished with modified claims

compared to the A2

A2M an A2 application, republished with modified first page

or text

A3M an A3 search report, republished with modified front

 page
+
modified can mean that there are either amendments or corrections or both
After June 2001, the designators A1, A2, A3 are retained and an “R” code (from R1-R9) is
appended. For example – A1 R1; A2 R6; etc)
These designators can be found in the Cambia IP Resource database output, but are not seen on
the front page of the printed publication.

Additional Kind Code Code meaning

post-June 2001

R1 Amended claims

R2 Additional search report

R3 Revised search report

R4 Late published search report

R5

R6 Correction of text (e.g., corrected drawings)

R7

R8

R9 Revised search report translation

Comments (0)

Comments Hide
There are no comments.

Add a comment

Please log in to be able to add comments.

A service of Donate | Disclaimer | Site Search | CAMBIA Login

What is the difference between a filing date

and a priority date?
The terms filing date and priority date are often used interchangeably, but they are not the
same. The filing date is the date when a patent application is first filed at a patent office. The
priority date, sometimes called the "effective filing date", is the date used to establish the
novelty and/or obviousness of a particular invention relative to other art.
The priority date may be earlier than the actual filing date of an application. If an application
claims priority to an earlier parent application, then its priority date may be the same as the
parent.

There are a number of situations where a patent application

may claim priority to an earlier application. These include:
• Continuation applications (including continuations, divisionals, and
CIPs). A patent application may claim priority to an earlier filed parent
application. When this occurs, the priority date of the new application is
usually the same as the priority date of the parent application.
• Domestic applications based on foreign or international filings. If a
patent application is first filed in a foreign country, or as an international
(PCT) application, and then filed domestically (usually within a year the
foreign or international filing), then the application that is filed domestically
may claim the filing date of the application in the foreign country as its
priority date.
• Patent filings based on US provisional patent applications. In the US,
an applicant may file a provisional patent application, and then file a full-
length application within one year. In this case, the priority date for the full-
length application is the date of the provisional application filing.
In many cases, a patent application claims priority to a series of applications. For example, a
continuation application may claim priority to a parent utility application, which claims priority
to a US provisional application. The new application may then claim priority to the first filed
application in the series, which in this case, is the provisional application.
If a patent application is an original, non-provisional patent application, not a continuation
application, and not previously filed in another country, its filing date is usually the same as its
priority date.

Can IP rights protect plants?

There are five basic methods by which an entity may claim that it has a legal right to intellectual
property, to the partial exclusion of the rights of others, in plants and plant products. Each of the
five available methods are discussed below, with particular reference to the mechanisms that are
used in the United States, Europe and Australia, where the systems are of longer standing and
widely used. Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) each country must implement such mechanisms, although there are local variations
possible, illustrated below by a section on India, which is implementing a sui generis system (a
system conforming to TRIPS but having its own national character) different from those listed
above.
1. Patents on Plants
1. Utility Patents
1. What is the scope of the right to claim a patent?
2. Types of allowable claims
3. Inclusions and Exclusions
4. Standards of patentability and the rights granted
5. Exemptions
2. Plant Patents
1. Limits on the types of plants that can be covered by plant
patents

2. Patentability requirements are less stringent for plant patents

3. Plant patents confer an exclusionary right
4. Dual patenting
2. Plant Breeders Rights
1. Requirement for protection under TRIPs
2. International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV)
3. Some examples of mechanisms for claiming IP rights to plants in
signatory countries
1. Plant Variety Protection Certificates (United States)
2. Plant Breeders Rights (Australia)
3. Community Plant Variety Rights (European Union)
4. A TRIPS-conforming sui generis system (India)
3. Trade Secrets
1. What is a trade secret?
2. When are trade secrets used with respect to IP claims in plants?
4. Genetic Mechanisms
1. Hybrids
2. Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs)
5. Examples of contracts not involving an exclusionary right conferred by a
national government

1. Material Transfer Agreements (MTA)

 2. Bag Labels
3. Technology Use Agreements (TUA)
6. Appendices
1. European Union Members

1. Patent Claims on Plants

In some countries (including the United States, Australia and Europe) plants can be covered by
patent claims provided that the patent applications are able to meet all of the necessary standards
and requirements that exist in that country for patentability. Under the Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Agreement which binds World Trade Organization members, member
countries that choose not to provide such mechanisms for plants under their national patent
system must provide an alternative way in which an entity may claim that it has a legal right to
intellectual property, to the partial exclusion of the rights of others, in plants and plant products.
Some examples other than patents per se are discussed in section 2.
A. Utility Patents*
In most countries, plants and inventions directed to plants or plant products (e.g. seed) are not
eligible for a patent grant, but some (including the United States and Australia) provide that an
entity may make claims to a time-limited right to exclude others from use of plants and plant
products, provided that the legal criteria for patentability are met. While the patent legislation of
each jurisdiction is different, the requirements and rights awarded to patentees are substantially
similar.
* The term "Utility Patent" is used to distinguish between patents and other specific forms of
intellectual property claims that exist in some jurisdictions, "Plant/Petty/Innovation Patents".
Utility patents in the United States are comparable to the standard patents that are awarded both
in Australia (under the Patents Act (1990)) and in Europe.
i) What can be patented?
In the United States, any living organism that is the product of human intervention (such as by
some breeding process or laboratory-based alteration) qualifies as a composition of matter,
which is patentable (Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303). As a result, plants are
patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. 101). Furthermore, the United States has extended patent
protection to plants produced by either sexual or asexual reproduction and to plant parts
including seeds and tissue cultures (Ex parte Hibberd (1985) 227 USPQ 433).
In Australia, the Patent Act (1990) allows all technologies to be patented (except 'human beings
and the biological processes for their production') provided that there is an "invention", defined
as 'an innovative idea which provides a practical solution to a technological problem'.
In addition or as an alternative to obtaining a patent through the patent office in individual
European countries, patent grants in nearly all European countries can be gained from filing at
the European Patent Office and registering the allowed claims in national patent offices. This
means of patenting is controlled by the European Patent Convention (EPC). Historically, each
European country was governed by their own national patent laws, however the introduction of
Directive 98/44/EC (effective in all European Union Member States 30th July 2000) aims to
harmonize protection for biotechnological inventions (including plant protection) amongst the
European Union members. Thus, each member country is required to bring their national laws in
line with the Directive, although some may not yet be fully in compliance.
ii) Types of allowable claims
Utility and standard patents may be used to claim exclusionary rights in
• new varieties of plants (U.S. only),
• transgenic plants,
• plant groups,
• individual plants and their descendants,
• particular plant traits,
• plant parts,
• plant components (e.g. specific genes or chromosomes),
• plant products (e.g. fruit, oils, pharmaceuticals),
• plant material used in industrial processes (e.g. cell lines used in cultivation
methods),
• reproductive material (e.g. seeds or cuttings),
• plant culture cells,
• plant breeding methodologies, and
• vectors and processes involved in the production of transgenic plants.
Note that this list provides examples and is not exhaustive.
iii) Inclusions and Exclusions
Natural source material should not be coverable by patents as exclusionary rights in any country
in the world, because natural source material is not novel (see below).
In the U.S. and Australia individual plant varieties are patentable. In Europe, individual plant
varieties per se are not patentable, however, a plant which is characterized by a particular gene
(as opposed to its whole genome) is not included in the definition of a plant variety and is
therefore patentable.
In Europe, transgenic plants are patentable if they are not restricted to a specific plant variety, but
represent a broader plant grouping. The European Directive considers plant cells to be
"microbiological products" and as a result are patentable.

EXAMPLE
While bushwalking, Amy discovers a plant which nobody has ever previously seen or
documented. Can Amy obtain a patent for the plant?
No. Amy can not patent the plant as it is natural source material and is not novel (see below).

iv) Standards of patentability and the rights granted

The legal criteria for patentability are substantially similar across all jurisdictions. In order to
show that the plant, plant technology or plant product of interest is an invention:
the patent application must show:
1) novelty
2) non-obviousness, or an inventive step
3) usefulness (United States) or industrial applicability (Europe, Australia)
4) enablement
5) claim clarity
6) written description
7) best mode (United States only)

From the date that a patent is granted, the patent holder has the exclusive right to exploit the
invention or authorize another person to do so until the patent expires. Patent rights are
considered personal property and may be assigned to other parties.

A utility patent grants the owner the right to exclude others from:
1) making,
2) using,
3) selling or offering for sale or
4) importing
the protected invention for a 20 year period* from the earliest file date.

*If a patent application was filed prior to June 8, 1995, the patent term of protection in the
United States is 17 years from the date of issuance.

EXAMPLE
John is the sole owner of a patent for herbicide resistant corn plants. He becomes aware that his
former co-worker Julie is making and selling the same patented corn plant. What can John do?
John, as the patent owner has the exclusionary right to stop others from making and selling his
invention. Julie is therefore infringing John's patent, and John can bring a lawsuit for
infringement or ask that Julie take out a llicense.

v) Exemptions
Exemptions to patent infringement that are relevent to patenting of plants are provided in some
jurisdictions.
In United States case law, an 'experimental use exception' to patent infringement was thought
to exist which allowed researchers free access to the invention in order to use it for experimental
purposes. However, based on the decisions in recent cases the doctrine certainly no longer exists
and it is highly doubtful whether the doctrine ever actually existed.
In Australia, limited exemptions are defined within the legislation. The 'prior use' exemption
allows someone who was utilizing the patented product or process before the priority date of a
claim to continue using the patented product without infringement. The use of a patented product
on board a foreign vessel that accidentally comes into the patent area is also exempted from
infringement.
The EU Directive 98/44/EC provides a 'farmer's privilege'. Under the Directive, farmers are
allowed to use patent protected seeds freely for their own use and the resulting plant material is
free from protection. Farmers are not permitted however, to re-sell the patented seed. Member
States are able to define their own exemptions to patent infringement (see, for example, Patents
Act 1977 (UK), s60 (5))
Although not an exemption per se, in the United States but not in Australia or Europe, an
inventor has a grace period allowing for retrospective application for a patent. Patent rights are
not automatically foregone by public disclosure, such as publication or commercialisation,
provided that a patent is applied for within 12 months of the disclosure. Note that other countries
(e.g., Japan) have a limited grace period, and other countries are considering instituting one.

EXAMPLE
Tom, a U.S. resident, was the first person to extract oil from sunflower plants. He presents his
findings at a biotechnology conference. It is not until after his presentation he realises that his
sunflower oil may be of commercial significance. Is it too late for him to patent his invention?
Tom can still obtain a patent in the United States provided he applies within twelve months of the
conference and the oil or its method of extraction meets the requirements for patentability.

B. Plant Patents
Specific plant patents are only available in very few countries.

The Plant Patent Act was enacted by US congress in 1930. It was introduced primarily to benefit
the horticulture industry by encouraging plant breeding and increasing plant genetic diversity.
i) Limited types of plants are eligible for protection
The Plant Patent Act 1930 (35 U.S.C. 161) provides for:

patent protection of all asexually reproduced plants

EXCEPT:
1) tuber-propagated plants and
2) plants found in an uncultivated state.

Plant patents encompass newly found plant varieties as well as cultivated spores, mutants,
hybrids and newly found seedlings on the proviso that they reproduce asexually. Asexual
reproduction is defined as any reproductive process that does not involve the union of individuals
or germ cells. It is the propagation of a plant to multiply the plant without the use of genetic
seeds. Modes of asexual reproduction in plants include grafting, bulbs, apomictic seeds,
rhizomes and tissue culture.
Specifically excluded from protection under the Plant Patent Act are tuber-propagated plants and
plants found in an uncultivated state.
ii) Patentability requirements are less stringent for plant patents
The requirements that must be fulfilled in order to obtain a Plant Patent are the same as those for
utility patents (see Patents (iv) above). However, the IMPLEMENTATION of these
requirements is LESS STRINGENT.
For example, the Plant Patent Act provides that plant patents will not be rejected or invalidated if
the plant is not fully described or enabled. It does however, require that the new variety is
described as complete as reasonably possible.
It is also not necessary to deposit the claimed plant at an official depositary.
The ordinary test of 'non-obviousness' is not applied to plant patents. This is primarily due to the
fact that it is extremely challenging to develop a new plant variety that is stable and can be
preserved by asexual reproduction.
iii) Plant patents confer an exclusionary right
A plant patent gives the patent holder the right to:

exclude others from asexually reproducing, using, selling, offering for sale or importing into the
United States the reproduced plant (or any of its parts)* for a period of 20 years.

In contrast to utility patents, plant patents only protect a single plant or genome and the
protection conferred is quite limited. It does not protect the plant characteristics, mutants of the
patented plant nor technologies associated with its cultivation. Because plant patents are granted
on the entire plant, it follows that only one claim per plant patent is permitted.
U.S. courts have held that a twelve month grace period also applies to plant patents (35 U.S.C
�102(b)) whereby a disclosure of a new plant variety or a granted patent of the new variety in a
foreign jurisdiction does not destroy patentability provided that the disclosure or foreign patent
occurred less than 12 months prior to the plant patent application being lodged in the U.S. If
publication has occurred in any other country prior to the 12 month grace period, the plant patent
application will be refused (Ex parte Thomson, 25 USPQ 2d 1618 (BPAI 1992)). This
interpretation of the law has met with proposals to increase the grace period to 10 years on the
basis that often times plants from foreign jurisdictions are held in quarantine by the USDA for a
period of more than 12 months, thereby nullifying patentability. To date this idea remains a
proposal.
*The Plant Patent Act was amended on 27 October 1998 to extend the exclusive right to plant
parts obtained from protected varieties but it is not applied retroactively.
iii) Dual protection is allowed
A utility patent and a plant patent can both be obtained to protect the same plant.

It is possible to obtain protection for the same plant under both a utility patent and a plant patent
in the United States at the same time, provided that the requirements for patentability for both
types of patents are fulfilled.

EXAMPLE
Marc and Crystal want to obtain protection in the U.S. for their new variety of asexually
reproducing plant. They also wish to protect a special aluminum device that contains specific
amounts of hormones and other nutrients needed to ensure the plants survival. What types of
protection are available?
Marc and Crystal can obtain a plant patent for the new variety plant provided they meet the
requirements for patentability. However the device required to guarantee survival of the plant is
unable to be protected by this system. Utility patents would provide protection to BOTH the
special device and the plant variety provided the criteria for patentability are fulfilled.

2. Plant Breeder's Rights* (PBRs)

While in the U.S. plant varieties can be protected under the patent system, in the majority of
jurisdictions including Australia, the protection of plant varieties under the patent legislation is
not permitted. Having a form of protection in place that is available to new plant varieties is
thought to be important in order to encourage and promote plant breeding, encourage the
importation of foreign varieties, promote the exportation of plant varieties and generally benefit
the market place.
* The term Plant Breeder's Rights is synonymous with Plant Variety Rights.
A. Requirement for plant protection under TRIPs
Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are bound by their membership to adhere to
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs). The Agreement sets
out the minimum standards of intellectual property protection the member countries are required
to provide.
One of the most controversial provisions of the Agreement surrounds protection of plant
varieties. Article 27(3)(b) of the Agreement allows countries to exclude plants and essentially
biological processes for their production from their patent system of protection. The same Article
however, states that countries must "provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents
or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof". Under the Agreement, a
country can implement more than one form of plant protection.
The meaning of "sui generis" is one of the contentious issues surrounding the agreement. It is
generally believed that the term enables member countries to design their own system of
protection for plant varieties if they have elected not to use their patent system for plant
protection. What is a sufficient system to qualify as "sui generis" remains to be seen.
B. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
The International Union for the Protections of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an
intergovernmental organization and not a 'treaty' as such. Countries are not obliged to join UPOV
as a result of their affiliation with any other organization or the ratification of any specific treaty.
Membership is purely voluntary.
Each member of the organization becomes bound to the UPOV Convention. The Convention
requires member countries to provide an intellectual property right specifically for plant
varieties. This form of IP protection is often referred to as Plant Breeder's Rights (PBR). As a
result of the PBR, the plant breeder is granted a legal monopoly over the commercialization of
her plant varieties. Protection allows the breeder to try to recover the costs associated with the
development of the variety. By conferring protection on plant varieties, UPOV also aims to
provide an incentive to individuals or companies to invest in plant breeding, thereby providing a
positive stimulus in the plant breeding industry. The rights granted are for a specific time only
(depending on the plant variety), and upon expiration of the time period, the protected variety
passes into the public domain.
The UPOV Convention has been revised three times, however not all member countries are
bound by the latest convention (1991). Approximately 26 countries remain bound by the 1978
Convention, while Spain and Belgium are bound by the original Convention (1961). The main
differences in the two latest agreements can be seen in the table below:
UPOV
1978 1991
Convention

Requirements Distinct, Uniform and Stable Distinct, Uniform, Stable, New

Commercial use of reproductive All plant varieties and products including

Protects
material of the variety plants that are derived

15 years from application date for

Duration of 20 years from application date for most
most species. 18 years for trees and
Protection species. 25 years for trees and vines
vines

Yes. Acts for breeding and Optional. The decision to include an

Breeder's
development of other varieties are exemption is dependent on each members
Exemption
not prohibited. national legislation.

The requirements for protection under UPOV require distinctness. The variety must be
distinguishable from any other variety which is publicly known at the time of filing the
application. The variety must have predictable characteristics and be able to be reliably
reproduced. The additional requirement under the 1991 Convention states that the variety must
be 'new'. The word 'new' is held to mean that the variety has not been sold or otherwise disposed
of by the breeder for commercial purposes prior to filing for protection. However, similarly to a
utility patent, natural source material is not protectable. The UPOV Convention does allow a 12
month 'grace period' for sales of the new variety before protection is no longer available (Article
6(1b)).
The latest Convention protects all plant varieties including those that are 'essentially derived' i.e.
plants which require the protected variety for their production. The protection offered to the plant
variety is an exclusionary right.

Protection confers the right to exclude others from:

1) producing or reproducing,
2) propagating,
3) offering for sale,
4) selling or other marketing,
5) exporting,
6) importing or
7) stocking for any of the above purposes
the protected variety.

However, the protected plant can be used for non-commercial acts (provided they are done
privately) and for experimental purposes without infringement.
Considering that many UPOV members are also bound to the TRIPs agreement (due to their
WTO membership), UPOV provides a framework by which countries can implement a
protection system that generally fulfills the TRIPs requirement of providing 'an effective sui
generis system' (see s2A).
C. Plant protection mechanisms provided by sample countries

i) Plant Variety Protection Certificates (United States)

The United States is bound by the TRIPs Agreement and is also a UPOV member. Because the
United States offers patents for plant varieties, technically it does not need to also provide a sui
generis system.
In the U.S. the UPOV Convention is implemented by the Plant Variety Protection Act (1970).
Changes to the Act made by Amendments in 1994 extended statutory protection to F1 hybrids
and tuber propagated plants and generally brought the United States into compliance with the
1991 UPOV Convention. The Plant Variety Protection Act is administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which issues Plant Variety Protection Certificates (PVPC) for
qualifying plant varieties.
The Plant Variety Protection Act protects sexually reproduced plants, including first generation
(F1) hybrids and tuber propagated plants (e.g. potato varieties). The requirements and term of
this protection offered are exactly the same as those outlined in the UPOV Convention.
The Plant Variety Protection Act requires that a deposit of seeds of the new variety be made at an
authorised depositary, and in the case of F1 hybrids, seeds of the parents must also be deposited.
The U.S. has in its national legislation only a limited farmer's exemption. In the case of farmers,
protected seed may be "saved" for replanting on their own individual holdings provided that it is
not sold to any third parties who use it for reproductive purposes.

Simultaneous protection by both a utility patent and a PVPC is allowed.

(J.E.M. AG Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International ((122 S. Ct. 593, 2001)).

*Any variety which was protected prior to the 1994 amendments is subject to the original Plant
Variety Protection Act (1970) which only provides 18 years of protection for non-woody plants.
However, applications submitted prior to April 4, 1995 (effective amendment date) may be re-
submitted in order to secure the extended term of protection provided by the amendments.
ii) Plant Breeder's Rights (Australia)
Similarly to the U.S., Australia is both a WTO and UPOV member and has implemented the
UPOV protection system as a mechanism for complying with TRIPs. Australia is signed onto the
1991 Convention. As a result, plant varieties are protected in Australia by a Plant Breeder's Right
(PBR) under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act (1994).
The requirements, term and rights conferred by the UPOV Convention are implemented under
the Plant Breeder's Rights Act.
In Australia, a PBR is obtained from and administered by the Plant Breeder's Rights Office, in
contrast to patents which are granted by IP Australia. Recently the Plant Breeder's Rights Office
was brought within IP Australia.
A choice is usually made between the two protection systems depending on the level of
protection sought and the ability to satisfy the necessary requirements. PBRs are generally
obtained much faster than a patent due to the lack of examination and are also much cheaper to
obtain. They are therefore desirable where protection is required in a short period of time and
there is no need to acquire rights over the use of the variety for non-commercial purposes. Where
comprehensive exclusive rights are desired, protection under the patent system would be more
suitable.
iii) Community Plant Variety Rights (European Union)
Plant variety protection in the European Union is a result of the European Convention
(Regulation 2100/94/EC), which is based on the 1991 UPOV Convention. It was introduced in
order to harmonise and streamline the method of plant variety protection available throughout
Europe.
The Community protection of plant varieties (CPVR) enables applicants, on the basis of one
application, to be granted a single intellectual property right which is operative throughout all
countries that are members of the European Union. A CPVR can only be transferred or ceased
within the EU Community on a uniform basis. That is, a CPVR can only be valid (or cancelled)
across all EU countries, not selected individual countries.
The CPVR exists alongside individual European countries' national plant protection legislation
as an alternative form of protection. As a result, it is not possible to hold protection for the same
plant variety under both the Community and a national system at the same time. Where a CPVR
is granted in r elation to a variety for which a national right has already been granted, the
national right is suspended for the duration of the CPVR.
The CPVR confers protection to all 'new' botanical genera and species, including their hybrids,
provided that the varieties meet exactly the same requirements as outlined under the UPOV
Convention. A CPVR is issued by the Community Plant Variety Office in Angers, France.

EXAMPLE
George wishes to obtain a CPVR for his new plant variety in Germany. He is unsure as to
whether his CPVR will provide protection in Italy and Switzerland.
The CPVR obtained by George will confer protection to George in ALL European Union
countries. There is no need to register individually in each country. George will automatically be
granted protection in Italy, however not in Switzerland as Switzerland is not a member of the EU.

iii) A sui generis system (India)

Many developing countries have an agricultural economy that is geared towards the domestic as
opposed to the export market. Such an economy is dependent upon farmer-produced seed of
varieties that are both maintained and further adapted to their local growing conditions by small-
scale farmers. Developing countries with such an economy want to acknowledge the rights of
farmers arising from their contribution to crop conservation and development and the sharing of
their knowledge on adaptive traits. They also want to encourage farmer-to-farmer exchange of
new crop/plant varieties that are adapted to the local growing conditions. As a result, some
developing countries have chosen a sui generis system of plant protection that is not compliant
with UPOV in that it allows farmers to improve and adapt the seed in order to make it more
successful in the local conditions.
Under the Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act 2001, plants are divided
into four main classes: new varieties, extant varieties, essentially derived varieties and farmers'
varieties. The regime for plant protection is similar to that set out by UPOV and the requirements
for protection are novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability. Under Article 39(iv) the farmer
is entitled to save use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a
protected variety. However he is unable to sell seed that has is branded with the Breeders name.
In this way the breeder has control of the commercial marketplace without threatening the
famers' ability to practise his livelihood.
The Indian Act also contains provisions for "benefit sharing" whereby the local communities are
acknowledged as contributors of land races and farmer vartieties in the breeding of "new" plant
varieties.
It is these extra provisions granting rights to both breeders and farmers which makes the Indian
system a sui generis method of protection. China and Thailand are other examples of countries
that do not implement a UPOV style protection system.

3. Trade Secrets
A. A trade secret is confidential information
A trade secret is commonly regarded as:

any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that is used in a business and gives
that business an opportunity to obtain advantages over competitors.

The information is kept from the public and from competitors, usually by the use of
confidentiality agreements with employees. These agreements confer an obligation on the
employees to keep the information secret. These agreements can be enforced by the court.
Generally for a trade secret to exist there must have been:
Secrecy: in the form of a confidentialtiy a greement or covenant. External forms of protection
such as security systems etc also impart the necessary requirement of secrecy.
Novelty: The subject of the secrecy must have been novel.
Value: The subject of the trade secret must be of some value or give some advantage over
competitors.
For a breach of a trade secret to occur, there must have been an improper taking. That is there
must have been a breach of the secrecy whether by theft or the breaking of a confidentiality
agreement.
One advantage of using trade secret law to protect an invention is the unlimited time for
protection. Some disadvantages however are that trade secret protection does not prevent
competitors from legally reverse engineering a product to determine the secret or from
independently duplicating the information. Inventions involving the use of DNA are now
unlikely to be protected by trade secrets due to the ability to reverse engineer.
B. Trade Secret laws can be used to protect plants
Plants can be protected provided that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the plant variety
confidential, secret and out of the public domain. In the United States, trade secrets have been
used for decades to protect parental lines of hybrid corn.
Recently a United States court recognized that "genetic messages" of inbred plant varietal lines
may be protected by trade secret law subject to the provision that reasonable effort has been
taken to preserve the secrecy of the gene sequence (Pioneer Hi-Bred case). In the Pioneer Hi-
Bred case it was held that the accidental inclusion of inbred seed in bags of commercially
available first generation seed by Pioneer Hi-Bred was not enough to destroy the secrecy
surrounding its "genetic message". Reasonable precaution had been taken to keep the "genetic
message" contained in the inbred seed out of the public domain.
Under Australian law it is theoretically possible that specific varieties of plants may be afforded
protection under the doctrine of confidential information or trade secrets, however to date, no
cases involving the doctrine and plant varieties have been brought before the courts. As a result it
is currently unclear as to the extent of protection available under the doctrine of trade secrets.

4. Genetic Mechanisms
A. Hybrids
In some cases, specialized plant breeding can present an alternative to intellectual property
protection.

Breeders often select individual plants that display beneficial or attractive traits such as a fast
growth rate in comparison to other plants or an increase in either herbicide or disease resistance
etc. The breeder then crosses these plants with individual plants of different varieties that also
demonstrate attractive traits. The resulting progeny are called hybrids.

Seeds resulting from hybrids show an extremely poor ability to reliably reproduce the trait of
interest in their progeny or next generation.

It therefore becomes necessary for the farmer to purchase new seed for subsequent plantings.
Hybrid selection therefore becomes a way for the plant breeder to protect their varieties from
exploitation as they are safe in the knowledge that the farmer or purchaser can only access the
trait reliably for one generation. Farmers and others must obtain more seed from the breeder if
they wish to continue to use the same hybrid plants.
Hybridisation therefore serves as a way of not only creating new plant varieties with attractive
traits but ensuring some sort of protection for new commercial plant varieties. Although this
method of protection is inexpensive and is not subject to legal requirements or restrictions, the
breeder has no enforceable remedy available to him/her, except under trade secret law (see
above) or by contractual agreement.
B. Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs)
Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) is technology that allows the control of gene
expression of an organism, further allowing constraints or restrictions on the use of the organism
or trait. The term GURT was developed by the Lead Author (CAMBIA's CEO) of the first study
commissioned by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

There are two main types of GURTs: variety-level GURT (v-GURT) and trait- level GURT (t-
GURT).
v-GURT causes the seeds of the affected plant variety to be sterile in contrast to t-GURT which
results in the expression of a selected trait. t-GURT introduces a mechanism for trait expression
into the variety which can only be turned on, or off, by treatment with specific chemical
inducers. The gene of interest can thus be expressed at particular stages or generations of the
crop.
In addition to intellectual property rights, plant breeders in principle are able to use GURTS to
strengthen the protection of newly developed plant varieties. The use of v-GURTs requires
farmers to buy seeds from the breeder each season and therefore could be used as a way of
avoiding the farmers privilege exception to patentability that exist in Europe. However, in some
situations v-GURTS are advantageous to farmers as they reduce the need for tillage and do not
sprout inappropriately. t-GURTs require the farmer to purchase chemical inducers from the
breeder in order for the farmer to be able to make use of the specific traits of the variety ie
herbicide resistance.
It should be emphasized that at the time of editing (2007) there are no commercial example of
GURTs known anywhere in the world. The initial example, dubbed Terminator by a Civil
Society Organization, was from a prophetic patent application that had not reduced the
technology to commercial practice.

5. Contracts
The following types of agreements are all governed by contract law as opposed to intellectual
property law. There are no international agreements that regulate the law of contracts.
A. Material Transfer Agreements
Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) are legal agreements made between a provider and a
recipient party when research material is being transferred between institutions.

Material most often transferred includes plant varieties, transgenic plants, cell lines, germplasm,
vectors, chemicals, equipment or software.
The MTA itself contains a written description of the material to be transferred and any limits on
the material that the provider wishes. For example some providers may limit the use of the
transferred material to non-commercial situations or to a specific field of research. In some cases
where publication of results occurs which involve the material it may be necessary to
acknowledge the source of the material.
The terms and conditions of the MTA also usually outline the ownership rights, confidentiality
provisions and any third party transfer restrictions that the provider of the material wishes to
impose.
The agreement acts as a contractual agreement that is often used to protect the rights of
ownership of the provider and also to protect the material from unauthorized use.
B. Bag Labels
Bag label contracts are another form of legal protection which can be applied to plants,
especially seeds. An explicit contract is described on a bag label which is normally sewn into the
seal of a bag. By opening the bag and breaking the seal, the purchaser agrees to comply with the
contract.
These contracts are similar to what is commonly known as "shrink wrap licenses" in software.
As yet the strength of protection conferred by the bag label is not firmly established.
C. Technology Use Agreements
A technology use agreement is an agreement most commonly between technology suppliers and
farmers which usually controls the right to plant a given seed on a specific area of land often for a
certain period of time.

The agreement provisions can also include restrictions on the use of proprietary traits in the
creation of new varieties and also gives permission for the technology supplier to access the
farmers property to check for violations.
This form of property right enforcement has been implemented by producers of agronomic traits
in the U.S. and other countries. In some cases, the producers reserve the right to inspect the field
of the contracting farmer and to take samples to ensure the compliance of the farmer with the
TUA.
A breach of a Technology Use Agreement gives rise to a claim for damages if a breach of
contract occurs.

Aren't patents necessary as incentives for

development of new inventions, for example
in the medical industry?
The patent system can serve as an incentive for innovation, but it doesn't exist simply to reward
innovators. Indeed, it explicitly does not reward all types of innovation.
The central purpose of the patent system is to encourage public disclosure of new inventions, in a
way that enables them to be used. It should provide a monopoly, therefore, only on inventions
which would not otherwise have been disclosed or obvious. There are many discoveries or bits
of knowledge that cost money and create value but are not patentable, such as the discovery of a
natural correlation, data on where to place a new shop and where in the shop to place
purchasable items for most effective marketing, cosmetic changes to the way something is
presented, non-original but critically important replicated steps for clinical testing and scale-up
etc.
In affirming a judgment of patent invalidity Lord Justice Jacob made the following observation:
"There are old or obvious ideas which take a lot of work, expense and time to develop and turn
into something practical and successful. Without the incentive of a [patent] monopoly, people
may not do that work or spend the time and money. The Fosamax case, Teva v Gentili [2003]
EWHC 5 (Patent), [2003] EWCA Civ 1545, is an example of an obvious invention which cost
lots to bring to market. But patent law provided no protection for all that investment because
the basic invention was obvious. The courts' job is not, however, to uphold any claim to a
monopoly for an idea which requires investment and risk to bring to market, only those for ideas
which are new, non-obvious and enabled. "
Angiotech Pharm., Inc. v. Conor MedSystems Inc., [2007] EWCA Civ 5, ¶ 50(Court of Appeal
2007)(Jacob, L.J.) , aff'g, [2006] EWHC 260 (Pat)(Pumfrey, J.)(High Court 2006)
Thus, there is no sense in which a large company "deserves" a patent because it has made a large
investment, unless it has provided enabling public disclosure of a new invention. Unfortunately
many patent applications in biological sciences do not describe inventions, but discoveries, and
many barely meet the standard of "enabling public disclosure", for example those providing
sequence listings or structural descriptions in a form that is not accessible to the public to search
readily.
Furthermore, patents sometimes serve as barriers to investment, both intellectual and financial.
Countless small and medium enterprises have discovered that venture capitalists are reluctant to
invest in their technologies because of uncertainty as to whether there is freedom to operate in
view of pending patent claims by other entities. "Patent pending" is sometimes a powerful way
to impose a particular partnership arrangement, even though another pathway might have been
more innovative.

Cover Page - Bibliographic information

The cover page presents information that is mainly bibliographic in nature. None of this
information, including the abstract, has any legal import for interpreting the patent. The data
provides notice mainly of historical facts and identifying elements, such as application filing date
and serial number.
A bracketed number, which is found adjacent to each data sub-section on the cover page, refers
to a specific field that the Patent Office uses for internal identification purposes. For ease of
discussion, the same numbers are referred to in this primer.
[19] Type of the publication (e.g., U.S. Patent) and first inventor's name.
[11] Patent number.
[45] Date the patent is issued
[54] Title of the patent.
[75] Inventors names and place of residence
[73] Assignees (patent owners) and their place of business
[21] Application number, which is assigned by the patent office.
[22] Filing date of the patent application.
[63] Related applications that the patent is claiming priority from.
[51] "International Classification" code, which is also known as the " International Patent
Classification (IPC)".
[52] U.S. classification codes that the patent relates to and which are assigned by the Patent
Office Examiner. The bolded code is considered to be the most relevant classification.
[58] Field of Search contains the U.S. Classification codes that the Examiner searched for prior
art.
[56] References made of record in the application process for the patent. Following the
references, the names of the Primary Examiner at the Patent Office, the Assistant Examiner (if
any), and the Attorney, Agent or Firm of record are listed.
[57] Abstract, which is a short description of the invention.
Finally, at the bottom of the cover page, the number of claims and drawings in the patent are
displayed.