3. Intellectual Property Rights Presentation
Rıfat Yenidünya

4. CV Personal Data Work Experience Education Name : Rifat Yenidunya
2002 – Patent Examiner, European Patent Office Munich-Germany
1995 – Istanbul University,
1994 – Kalekalıp, Eurostinger Project and Member of Turkish Industry Delegation in West European Armament Group, subgroup plane landing systems
Education
1997 – Ph.D in Solid State Physics Istanbul University
1999 – Tubitak Scholar at University of Essex, UK
1994 – M.Sc in Electronics Engineering İstanbul University
1992 – DAAD Scholar TU Munich
1986 – B.Sc in Electronics and Telecommunication Eng. İTU
İstanbul Lisesi
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

5. 3. Patent Philosophies: US vs. EPO
İÇERİK
1. Patentability
2. Patent Process
3. Patent Philosophies: US vs. EPO
3.1 First to Invent vs. First to File
3.2 In Continuation Application
3.3 Differences in Claims
4. Unity of Invention
4.1 Number of Independent Claims
4.2 Exceptions
5. Ranges
6. Recent Changes in US Patent Law
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

6. Patentability
Patent, is the right of inventor to produce, use, sell and import the product for a certain period of time. The document referred to this right is Patent Rergistration Certificate.
Not Patentable Inventions and Subjects
Criterias
Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods.
Mind, plan for the commercial and game activities, procedures and guidelines.
Literary and artistic works, scientific works, creations with aesthetic nature.
Procedures that are not related to technical aspects regarding information collection, organization, presentaiton and transmissin.
Diagnosis, treatment and surgical procedures applying human and animal body (Bu usullerin herhangi birinde kullanılan terkip ve maddeler ile bunların üretim usulleri hariç.)
Inventions whose subject is contrary to public order or public morality
Bitki veya hayvan türleri veya önemli ölçüde biyolojik esaslara dayanan bitki veya hayvan yetiştirilmesi usulleri
Novel & Involve Inventive Step: The subject matter of the application is not disclosed elsewhere ( novelty ) or can not be achieved just by combination of existing documents ( inventive step ) in the field.
Exceeding state of the art: The persob skilled in the art can not achive the subject matter of the application using his skills and open literature..
Applicability to industry: Instead of being purely hypothetical having features that can be applied in practice
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

7. Patent Process Project Assesment After decision is taken
Patent Analysis Report
Non Disclosure Agreement,
Invention Disclosure Form (IDF),
Memo. of Understanding
IDF verification
Prior art search
1 day
5 days
Not worth to file
Worth to File
Protection is not legally binding
Project Assesment
1-2 week
Description ı
Trade Secret
Know-how
After decision is taken
Protection type, national, local ,
İnternational
Government subsidizing mainy TUBITAK grant
1-2 week
1-2 Hafta
Representative costs
UTILITY MODEL
PATENT
PATENT appl.
TÜBİTAK grant appl.
Within 12 months from first filing priority can be claimed in international filings!
UTİLİTY M.APPL.
Faydalı M. Başvuru
15 M
Legal fees after registration
15 M
Search report
PUBLICATION
3 M
Publication ı
PATENT
3 M
6 M
*Protection is registered,
*low inventive step,
*low cost
*no search no examination
*10 year protection
UTILITY MODEL
~5 Year
6 months (reply)
Examination report
* Protection is registered
*High inventive step,
*high cost
*20 years protection
2-3 Year (on examiner desk)
PATENT
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

8. Patent Approach: US vs. EPO
US vs EPO BEFORE MARCH 16
First To Invent First To File
In Continuation Application
Differences In Claims US
Even in the late at night, ideas can be stamped in the pharmacies and transmit to the patent office next day morning
EPO
Situation in the US is not accepted on EPO. For the approval of the idea it’s necessary to wait until next day US
Generally inventions tries to be protected by multiple independent claims.
In EPO this situaiton is confronted with the objection of LACK OF UNITY.
EPO
An invention must be protected by 1 independent claim
USA
EPO
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

9. Unity of Invention Number of Independent Claims: US vs EPO
Involves the description of invention’s main features
Dependent Claim:
involves all the features of affiliated claim
specifies additional properties which needs protection
in the beginning it refers to independent claim
Number of independent claims in EPO applications: 1
However, there can be 2 independent claims: 1 for device and 1 for method.
If one invention is complementary by another, there can be more than one independent claim.
Ex: Plug-Socket
There can be more than one independent claim in US applications
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

10. Unity of Invention Exceptions
US: In the case of 2 different parties applying the same patent, one who started laboratory works first takes priority.
EPO: In the case of 2 different parties applying the same patent, one who applied first takes priority. If application date is same, one who started laboratory works first takes priority.
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

11. Ranges One Component – Ex: Temperature New Patent Application T1 T2
Patent Founded By Examiner T1 T2 T3 T4
New Patent Application T1 T3 T5 T6 T4 T2
Patent Founded By Examiner T1 T2 T3 T4
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

12. Ranges Two Components – Ex: Temperature + Pressure T P T P
In the two components case, if one of the components remains constant examiner can make contrary comments with alternative patent. P P1 P2 T
However, if both of the components are variables examiner may have difficulties to find alternative patent. T1 T3 T4 T2 P P1 P3 P4 P2
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved

13. RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
In this scenario, inventor A would be entitled to receive the patent on her widget even though inventor A filed her patent application after inventor B. Inventor A may need to “swear behind” inventor B’s patent application by showing documentation regarding her earlier invention date of the widget, and that she diligently worked to actually or constructively “reduce the invention to practice” (constructive reduction to practice can be shown by preparing and filing the patent application). Under the first-to-invent system, inventor B would not receive a patent on the invention.

14. RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
First to file principle is being applied in USA since March
In this scenario, Inventor B would receive the patent, even though inventor A came up with the invention for the widget first. Inventor A would therefore be prohibited from practicing the invention patented by inventor B even though he came up with the invention before Inventor B did.

15. RECENT CHANGES IN US PATENT LAW
In this modified scenario, Inventor A would be entitled to the patent even though Inventor B filed his patent application first because Inventor A disclosed the invention before Inventor B filed his patent application. Therefore, because Inventor A filed the patent application within one year of his public disclosure, Inventor A will be entitled to receive the patent. Inventor B would therefore be prohibited from practicing the invention patented by Inventor A.
In USA still one year grace period, but not in many other countries including EPO countries. Therefore disclosure on Feb 7 is a problem for inventor A on EPO and if inventor B files on Feb. between 1 and 7 in EPO he can have a patent in EPO.

16. Q & A
İnventramA.Ş. Sunumu © Koç Holding 2012 All rights reserved