Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Nontraditional publications and their effect on patentable inventions

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, pages 401–402 (2002)Cite this article

Less traditional forms of printed publications can compromise your IP position.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 35 USC §102(a) states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent....”

  2. 35 USC §102(b) states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States....”

  3. In re Wyer, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981).

  4. Regents of the University of California v. Howmedica, Inc., 210 USPQ 727 (D. NJ 1981) Projection of slides at a lecture was limited in duration and could not disclose the invention to the extent necessary to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.

  5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Fortia, 227 USPQ 428 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Research paper teaching claimed cell culture technique which was presented orally to conference of 50–500 cell culturists and distributed without restrictions to a number of scientists is a printed publication.

  6. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Cetus Corp., 19 USPQ 2d 1174 (N.D. CA 1990).

  7. 5 USC §552 and 45 CFR Part 5.

  8. In re Hall, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Baxter Diagnostics Inc. v. AVL Scientific Corp., 924 F.Supp. 994 (C.D. CA 1996).

  9. In re Cronyn, 13 USPQ 2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Counsel at Wiggin & Dana LLP, One Century Tower, P.O. Box 1832, New Haven, 06508, CT

    Todd E. Garabedian

Authors
  1. Todd E. Garabedian
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garabedian, T. Nontraditional publications and their effect on patentable inventions. Nat Biotechnol 20, 401–402 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0402-401

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0402-401

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing