Novelty is a requirement for a patent claim to be patentability. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public before the filing date of the patent application, or before its date of priority right if the applicant claims priority of an earlier patent application. The purpose of the novelty requirement is to prevent prior art from being patented again.
[: "I. Patentability; C. Novelty; 1. General" ("An invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of Art. 54(1) EPC is to prevent the state of the art being patented again (T 12/81, OJ 1982, 296; T 198/84, OJ 1985, 209).")]
Novelty is requirement for a patent claim to be patentability
In contrast, if an invention was known to the public before filing a patent application, or before its date of priority right
, if the priority of an earlier patent application is claimed, the invention is not considered new and therefore not patentable.
To assess the novelty of an invention, a search through what is called the prior art is usually performed, the term "art" referring to the relevant technical field. A prior art search is generally performed with a view to proving that the invention is "not new" or old. No search can possibly cover every single publication or use on earth, and therefore cannot prove that an invention is "new". A prior art search may for instance be performed using a keyword search of large patent databases, scientific papers and publications, and on any web search engine. However, it is impossible to guarantee the novelty of an invention, even once a patent has been granted, since some obscure little known publication may have disclosed the claimed invention.
A patent grants an inventor a legally enforceable monopoly over their invention. This means that others can be legally restrained from exploiting the invention. It is not the intention of the patent system to deny anyone what they have been free to do before someone claims an invention. For example, one cannot patent the wheel, as that would exclude others from doing what they had previously been free to do. The legal test is that the invention must be something new, i.e. it must possess "novelty". The invention of the wheel is not new, because the wheel already forms part of the prior art.
In some countries, such as the Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Russia, United States, a grace period
exists for protecting an inventorship
or their successor in title from authorised or unauthorised disclosure of the invention before the filing date
. That is, if the inventor or the successor in title publishes the invention, an application can still be validly filed which will be considered novel despite the publication, provided that the filing is made during the grace period following the publication. The grace period is usually 6 or 12 months. In China, the grace period is 6 months. In Russia, the grace period is 6 months (Civil Code part IV, article 1350 (3)). In USA, the grace period is 12 months ("Leahy-Smith America Invents Act")
In other countries, including countries, any act that makes an invention available to the public, no matter where in the world, before the filing date or priority date has the effect of barring the invention from being patented. Examples of acts that can make an invention available to the public are written publications, sales, public oral disclosures and public demonstrations or use.
The grace period should not be confused with the priority year defined by Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The priority year starts when the first filing in a contracting state of the Paris Convention is made, while the grace period starts from the pre-filing publication.
Local novelty only regards publications, uses or sales that have taken place within that jurisdiction to be novelty destroying.
In Canada, the requirements for novelty are codified under section 28.2 of the Patent Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4):
The section does not restrict disclosure to prior patents, giving a broad description of what includes prior disclosure; so long as the subject-matter was disclosed “in such manner that the subject-matter became available to the public”, the subject-matter is barred from being patented.
[ Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4, s. 28.2(1)(a) and (b).] This may include prior patents, publications or the invention itself being put on display. Disclosures in a private document, such as an internal memo that is not available to the public, do not count. [David Vaver, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright Patents Trade-Marks, 2d ed (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2011) at 321.]
There is an eight-pronged test to determine whether anticipation occurs in Canada. The prior art must:
give an exact prior description;
give directions which will inevitably result in something within the claims;
give clear and unmistakable directions;
give information which for the purpose of practical utility is equal to that given by the subject patent;
convey information so that a person grappling with the same problem must be able to say "that gives me what I wish";
give information to a person of ordinary knowledge so that he must at once perceive the invention;
in the absence of explicit directions, teach an "inevitable result" which "can only be proved by experiments"; and
satisfy all these tests in a single document without making a mosaic.
[ Reeves Brothers Inc. v. Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd., 43 C.P.R. (2d) 145.]
The current test now requires that only 1 of the 8 tests be fulfilled in order to find anticipation.
[Tye-Sil Corp. v. Diversified Products Corp. (1991), 35 CPR (3d) 350 at 361, 362 (FCA)]
European Patent Convention
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for
which, among other things, are new. The central legal provision governing the novelty under the EPC is .
In the United States the four most common ways in which an inventor will be barred under Section 102 are:
by making the invention known or allowing the public to use the invention; or
having the invention published in a fixed medium (such as in a patent, patent application, or journal article); or
if the invention was previously invented in the U.S. by another, who has not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention, or
if the invention was described in a patent application filed by another, where the application later issues as a US patent.
In U.S. patent law, a claim lacks novelty, and anticipation occurs when one prior art reference or event discloses all the features of a claim and enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The term "features" in this context refers to the elements of art of the claim or its limitations as explained in the all elements rule.
A prior art reference must not only disclose every feature of a claim, but must also disclose the features arranged or combined in the same way as the claim.
[MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)]
Doctrine of inherency
Point of novelty
World Intellectual Property Organization