FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

I think I invented something. Now what?

First step is to find out if you really have an invention. For your innovation to be an invention, you should be the first person on earth to come up with such an idea. In order to find out if such a technology exists already, you have two options: 1) You may find a patent attorney or agent, he/she would ask a patent investigator for a patent/technology search about your innovation. This would cost some money. 2) You may do the patent/technology search yourself using for example the following sites:
- Google patents.
- United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): boolean search, search with patent number.
- European Patent Office.

If you can not find any technology similar to your innovation, you may proceed for a patent application. However, you should bear in mind that, during the progress of your patent application the patent examiner, or even after the patent is issued, another party may come across of an older technology similar to yours. Such a technology would prevent you from getting a patent, or challenge your patent if it were already issued.

↑

I performed the patent search, I could not find any technology similar to mine. What next?

You may now proceed with the filing of your patent application. You may do it yourself, or you may hire a patent lawyer to do it for you.

If you are very worried that your idea may be stolen, you may choose to file the application directly yourself on the website of the USPTO. However, if you file the application yourself and if you make the scope of your claim narrow, you can not expand it later. (see below the question about ‘paper patent’)

It is very risky for a patent lawyer to steal the idea of his/her client. Hence, you may want to hire an attorney or agent forehand, and let him/her prepare and make the application for you.

↑

How should I select a patent attorney or agent?

He/she should be honest and familiar to the field of your technology.

Patent attorneys and agents usually charge per hour. However, some of them are so generous toward themselves that they do not stop the timer even when they go to lunch or restroom; they do not mind giving their clients unfairly inflated bills.

If your innovation is, for example, about a paint or a soap, a person with chemistry background may be more competent in the execution of the application.

Most of the time initial consultation is free of charge. You should meet as many attorneys and agents as possible until you feel comfortable that you found the right person for the job. If one tries to charge for initial consultation, it may be sign of greed…

↑

How good will my patent be in other states and countries?

Your patent will give you the right to exclude others from making, selling, using your invention in all states of the U.S. However, if you do not apply for patent in other countries according to the local laws of those countries, you can not have any patent protection there. In other words, if you do not apply for patent in an other country within 30 months after your first filing date in the U.S., you practically donate your invention/technology to that country.

Let us explain this with an example:

Let John invent a very thin fabric that insulates heat very well. He can make thin outfits that can be worn in very cold weather. John makes his patent application according to the U.S. patent law. He thinks that his fabric would sell well in cold countries; he decides to apply for patent also in Canada, Finland, and Norway. Within twelve months he makes an application to Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), to show his intention that he is going to apply for patent in other countries. Within eighteen months following the PCT application, he applies for patent at the patent offices of Canada, Finland, and Norway, according to the local laws there. Following this thirty months from the date of the first application in the U.S. he has no more right to make any patent application in any other country.

Let us say that some manufacturers in Switzerland notice John’s patent, and think that coats, jackets made with such a thin fabric would have a good market at resorts on Alp mountains. They start to manufacture and sell such fabric and outfits without any permission from John. They can also export them to all countries in the world except U.S., Canada, Finland, and Norway.

Manufacturers in Canada, Finland, and Norway know about John’s patent, however, they can not make, sell, or use it before taking a licence from John. During the life of the patent protection, which is about 20 years from the initial filing date in the U.S., John and his licensees in the U.S., Canada, Finland, and Norway, enjoy monopoly and high selling prices. When patent protection ends, nobody needs any licence from John, and competetion to manufacture the fabric starts, prices drop to regular market levels...

↑

BioNTech has not registered its COVID vaccine patents in my country. Are those patents donated to my country?

Absolutely yes! As emphasized in the answer to the previous question, if BioNTech did not apply for patent protection at the patent office of your country within 30 months from the priority date, it can not apply for patent in your country any more; this means that practically it has legally donated that patent to your country; any person(s), any company/companies with relevant technical skill can manufacture, use, and sell the vaccine(s) without any permission from BioNTech. They also can export to countries where BioNTech has not applied for patent protection.

The general practice is that inventors, assignees do not apply for patent protection in third-world countries. In other words, almost all U.S. patents are donated to these nations. Because people living there are unaware of the patent system as a whole, they stay as non-developed.

↑

Where can BioNTech’s vaccine patents be reached?

One may reach them online at Google Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s, World Intellectual Property Organization’s, etc. sites. Some of them are available here:

• Patent # 9,950,065; Title: Particles comprising a shell with RNA.

•  10,485,884; RNA formulation for immunotherapy.

•  10,576,146 ; Particles comprising a shell with RNA.

•  US2014/0030808; Method for Cellular RNA Expression (patent pending, i.e. not issued yet).

•  US2017/0273907; Stable formulations of lipids and liposomes (pending).

•  US2018/0263907; Lipid Particle Formulations for Delivery of RNA and Water-Soluble Therapeutically Effective Compounds to a Target Cell (pending).

•  US2019/0321458 ; Formulation for administration of RNA (pending).

•  US2019/0153428; Method for reducing immunogenicity of RNA (pending).

•  US2020/0197508 ; Method for reducing immunogenicity of RNA (pending).

•  US2020/0155671; Particles Comprising a Shell with RNA (pending).

•  WO2013/087083; Particles comprising single stranded RNA and double stranded RNA for immunomodulation. (Publication of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).)

•  WO2015/043613; Particles comprising a shell with RNA. (WIPO publication.)

•  WO2016/156398; Lipid particle formulations for delivery of RNA and water-soluble therapeutically effective compounds to a target cell. (WIPO publication.)

↑

I don’t want a “paper patent,” what should I do?

“Paper patent” means practically an invention that was/is not commercially produced.

For a patent not to be produced commercially, there are basically two reasons:

1) During the development process, it may be found that it is either not possible to make it commercially, e.g. a medication that fails during clinical trials, or a better technology by a competitor makes the patented invention obsolete to produce.

2) Patent’s claim is so narrow that it does not provide a sound protection, and nobody wants to invest for its production.

As is known, in the claims section of the patent the invention is described by words in such way that the boundary of the patent is drawn. This boundary is alike the borders between countries. Similar to how a country’s border can not infringe the territory of its neighbor, a patent’s boundary should not infringe any other patent.

Usually the first claim of each patent is the broadest one that provides the maximun protection. When an application is filed, patent examiner first checks that the first claim does not infringe any other patent, then tries to make your first claim as small as possible to give room to future research and development.

If the first claim is too narrow, patent office does not want to waste much time and money about the expensive examination process, and issues the patent that stays as “paper patent,” relatively easily.

When selecting a legal representative, if he/she says that your invention may be easily patented, you should pay attention to the first claim that he/she would prepare. If the patent is issued easily, it may be the case of a paper patent.

↑

How can I find capital to manufacture my invention?

If you have a patent with a good protection (i.e. broad first claim) you may contact venture capital firms. There are many venture capital companies each specilizing in different fields; they screen newly registered patents regularly. If your patent and its protection are sound, they may find you even before you go to them...

↑

I am an engineer, how come I have not known about patents?

Almost all inventions are created at the research and development departments of manufacturing companies; scientists/technologists working there follow newly issued patents daily...

↑

What is the difference between U.S. patent law and other countries’ patent laws?

U.S. patent law is the only law that requires the info disclosed in the patent should give enough details so that an “artisan of ordinary skill” should be able to manufacture the invention. In other countries’ laws “a person skilled in the art” is stated; in other words, law does not require the info to be very detailed...

↑

What is logic?

In the following text, logic is meant to be “reasoning in order to find out the right among many wrongs.”

↑

Are people logically equal?

Logically, humans are not equal. Most of them have “mouse logic.” Some of them have a logic that is even worse than the mouse logic.

Mouse Logic

If one set up a trap for mice, he/she could only catch a couple of them. That is because if a mouse sees another one caught in the trap, not only it omits going for the bait the next day, but it also warns the other members of its community so that they keep away from the trap.

Human mind tricked mouse logic as follows: it invented a poison (e.g. Bromethalin) that kills not right away but in more than twenty four hours. Humans then prepared tasty baits with this poison, and put many of them where the mice attended. A mouse not only ate the bait, but it also took some to its nest to share with others. When it died because of paralysis, mouse logic could not connect the death to the bait eaten a couple of days ago. Thanks to this invention, humans could destroy a whole colony of mice within about a week.

Most humans also have logic similar to mouse logic; it is expressed by the saying “seeing is believing.”

After Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred in 1986, winds carried radioactive particles to northern regions of Turkey, and contaminated the tea plantation there. Scientists found high levels of radiation in tea plants and recommended destruction of the crop for at least two years, until the radiation decreased to an acceptable level. The person who was in charge of the marketing of the tea harvest appeared on TV. He had a cup of tea in his hand, and was saying that scientists’ recommendations were nonsense, because he was drinking tea and nothing was happening to him; the contaminated tea crop was not banned. Cancer cases jumped high in the next coming years. This was a typical example of mouse logic occurring in humans.

Being cognizant of this concept, one may easily observe many events of mouse logic in everyday life. (e.g. denial of global warming and climate change...)

Worse Than The "Mouse Logic"

Asch conformity experiments performed in 1950s revealed that some humans may even not believe what they see.

In summary, the experiments were performed as follows: For each subject there were seven actors. These eight people were shown two pictures. On the first picture there were three lines of different lengths (e.g. line A: 3cm, line B: 5cm, and line C: 7cm (i.e. the difference in length was obvious)). Then they were presented a second picture that had only one line, and were asked if the line was as long as A, or B, or C. The set up of the experiment was such that the subject answered the last, after hearing what the actors said. On the first round the line was as long as, let us say, B, all the actors said B, and the subject told B too. On the second round actors correctly said C, the subject also agreed. However, on the third round the right answer was, let us say, A but the actors said C. How do you think the subject answered; did he/she believe his/her own eyes, or did he/she just repeat the wrong answer C?

36.8% of the subjects repeated the wrong answer.

Conclusion

Logically, humans are not equal. Unfortunately no research was performed to determine how many percent of them have mouse logic (as a guess, it is about 60%). However, thanks to Asch’s experiments, one knows that about 37% of them do not believe even while they see with their own eyes. When one is aware of this difference in logic among humans, it becomes easy to understand why hardcore fanatics are about 35% in almost every country.

However, the election on 11/3/2020 demonstrated that this figure is about 47% in the U.S. of America. About 47% of registered voters voted for a maniac who has been spreading the Covid-19 virus personally himself, who has left tens of thousands of people without health insurance, who has caused the death of more than two hundred thousand Americans by ignoring the pandemy, and preventing the precautions to be taken to stop the spread of the disease, who has been trying to kill the Earth by denying the Climate Change...

The bottom line is: people who praise/follow/vote for a “maniac moron” are maniac morons too; this is true for all countries...

↑