"Enablement, Enablement, Enablement": Evaluating the Strength of a Provisional Patent

16 October 2013 Innovative Technology Insights Blog

There’s an old saying that, when it comes to establishing the value of real property, it’s all about “location, location, location.”  When it comes to intellectual property, it can be said that it’s all about “enablement, enablement, enablement.”  This is true whether one is considering a utility patent application, which can ultimately mature into a patent after examination, or a provisional application, which cannot.

A provisional patent application is often referred to as a “bookmark” or a “placeholder” since it establishes a priority date for the subject matter disclosed in the application as filed.  However, a provisional application is valid as a priority date marker only for that subject matter which is disclosed by the application in the manner specified by 35 U.S.C. 112 – that is, in a manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the claimed invention.

Therefore, an important test for determining the strength of a provisional patent application is to ask whether the provisional patent application enables the invention that the applicant ultimately wants to claim.  The provisional patent application, therefore, must be evaluated in much the same way as a utility application would be – that is, the text of the provisional application should be carefully reviewed for technical accuracy and completeness, paying special attention to making sure that the provisional application describes technology that the company is still using.

Brilliant ideas may fit on cocktail napkins; strong provisional patent applications typically do not.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services