Although the legislative switch to a "first-to-file" system invokes the idea of eliminating priority contests between two competing inventors, some proponents of first-to-file systems are actually asking for a more expansive absolute novelty system.

Switching the US to an absolute novelty system would have three primary disruptive components: (1) ending interferences and other priority contests; (2) ending the ability for patentees to avoid putative prior art by proving an earlier invention date; and (3) ending the grace period for an inventor's own prior disclosures. These changes would impact the law as applied both in prosecution and litigation.

In this survey, I am hoping to get a sense of the relative importance of these changes. The survey should take only about five minutes to complete.

Rank the following changes to US patent law according to their level of disruptiveness to the current system. For advocates of a legislative change, the most disruptive changes may be positive. Others may see the changes as having a negative impact.

Question Title

1. Rank the following changes to US patent law according to their level of disruptiveness to the current system. For advocates of a legislative change, the most disruptive changes may be positive. Others may see the changes as having a negative impact.

  1 (Most Disruptive) 2 3 4 5 6 (Least Disruptive)
Litigation: Eliminate Accused Infringers Right to Invalidate a Patent Based on Prior Invention Under 102(g)
Litigation: Eliminate a Patentee's Right to Avoid 102(a)/(e) Prior Art by Proving Prior Invention
Prosecution: Eliminate Interferences at the PTO
Prosecution: Eliminate an Applicant's Right to Antedate (Swear Behind) Asserted Prior Art References
Prosecution: Eliminate the Grace Period for an Applicant's own Pre-Filing Disclosures
Litigation: Eliminate the Grace Period for a Patentee's own Pre-Filing Disclosures
Would you support moving the US system to an absolute novelty system?

Question Title

2. Would you support moving the US system to an absolute novelty system?

Would you support a switch that eliminates priority contests and the ability to swear behind, but retains a one-year grace period for an applicant's own disclosures?

Question Title

3. Would you support a switch that eliminates priority contests and the ability to swear behind, but retains a one-year grace period for an applicant's own disclosures?

Would you support a switch that eliminates priority contests but retains an applicant's ability to swear behind and also retains a one-year grace period for an applicant's own disclosures?

Question Title

4. Would you support a switch that eliminates priority contests but retains an applicant's ability to swear behind and also retains a one-year grace period for an applicant's own disclosures?

Your Qualifications

Question Title

5. Your Qualifications

Your area of business or technology:

Question Title

6. Your area of business or technology:

Your Position

Question Title

7. Your Position

OPTIONAL: Your Contact Info - Otherwise the question responses are anonymous.

Question Title

8. OPTIONAL: Your Contact Info - Otherwise the question responses are anonymous.

Thank you!

T