Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales

DIVULGACIÓN PREVIA DE UNA INVENCION
Y SUS IMPLICANCIAS INTERNACIONALES

Autores: Pablo Fabian Paz y María Florencia Cárpena.

―Divulgación previa de una invención y sus implicancias internacionales‖
Material protegido por derechos de autor 2013. ©

INDICE

Nociones Introductorias……………………………………………………. Pág. 3
Análisis de la divulgación previa en Argentina……………………... Pág. 5
Estado de la Técnica, Divulgación previa y explotación
de la invención en Argentina……………………………………….…….. Pág. 7
Divulgación previa en otros países y la obligatoriedad de
declararla……………………………………………………………….……… Pág. 8
Divulgación Previa en el Convenio de Paris………………………… Pág. 9
El tratamiento de la Divulgación Previa en la legislación
de los países del mundo………….………………….……………….…... Pág. 10
Tabla. Listado de países y tratamiento de Divulgación Previa.. Pág. 13
Casos ejemplificativos…………………………………………………….. Pág. 95

2

Nociones Introductorias.
Sabido es que las patentes son útiles para la apropiación de ciertas invenciones que
por su naturaleza son fácilmente reproducibles y facilitan la adquisición de un derecho
exclusivo sobre la fabricación, uso, comercialización o importación de la invención en el
territorio donde se desee explotar.
En el ámbito académico es frecuente la publicación de artículos acerca de
resultados de investigación en revistas científicas, tesis, ferias, exposiciones, seminarios,
talleres, eventos y a veces en páginas de internet, sin aún haberse presentado una solicitud de
patente ó mismo haberse analizado la posibilidad del patentamiento y/o la eventual
transferencia de tecnología patentable.
Uno de los grandes desafíos de las Oficinas de Vinculación Tecnológica ó de
Transferencia de Tecnología en Instituciones, principalmente en las de carácter público,
radica en evitar la publicación previa ó anticipada de una invención que posea atractivo
comercial y pueda ser objeto de una solicitud de patente.
En ese orden de ideas, la divulgación previa constituye un obstáculo difícil de
sortear para quien ha presentado la solicitud y deviene en la mayoría de los casos en la
imposibilidad de patentamiento de la invención y la consecuentemente pérdida de la
capacidad de transferir dicha tecnología en forma exclusiva, a excepción de algún
conocimiento técnico secreto ó del tipo “Know How”.
De esta manera las Instituciones no logran recuperar el dinero invertido en la
investigación y desarrollo de la invención, viendo así reducidas las posibilidades de obtener
ingresos derivados de derechos de patente y paralelamente se desalienta a la empresa ó
potencial inversor, cuyo interés se verá disminuido al saber que el mercado que genere no le
será exclusivo y un tercero podrá competir con la misma invención.
En todas las legislaciones de patentes del mundo existe un requisito de
patentabilidad denominado “novedad”, indispensable para que una solicitud de patente sea
concedida. La “novedad” de una patente, se refiere a que la invención propuesta no se
encuentre en el estado de la técnica, es decir que no haya sido divulgada públicamente por
ningún medio, en cualquier lugar del mundo, con anterioridad a la presentación de la
solicitud, ó de su prioridad en caso de corresponder.
3

Como se imaginará, si se presenta una solicitud de patente luego de la divulgación
pública de la invención, por ejemplo después de haberla mostrado en una feria, exposición,
exhibición, tesis ó revista científica ya no se cumpliría con este requisito de “novedad” y
por lo tanto la solicitud sería denegada por la Oficina de Patentes, aun cuando haya sido
presentada por sus legítimos inventores.
Afortunadamente en la mayoría de las legislaciones de patentes del mundo se
prevén determinadas situaciones para ciertas “Divulgaciones Previas”, también conocidas
como “Divulgaciones no perjudiciales”, que funcionan como excepción al requisito de
novedad, cuando la invención ha sido dada a conocer por el inventor con anterioridad a la
presentación de la solicitud de patente.
Esta excepción genera en cabeza del autor y titular de la patente, la obligación de
denunciar al momento de la presentación de la solicitud esta divulgación previa, siempre
dentro de un plazo determinado y cumplidos que sean los requisitos establecidos de acuerdo
al medio de comunicación utilizado.
Verificados estos pasos, la solicitud de patente no será denegada por falta de
novedad a causa de dicha publicación que ha pasado a conformar el estado de la técnica, aún
en el caso en que haya sido presentada con posterioridad a su divulgación.
Es muy importante entender que cuando se habla de divulgación previa de una
invención, no se hace referencia a un simple comentario público sobre la invención que se
pretende proteger, sobre sus beneficios ó ventajas, sino a brindar información relevante de la
misma, revelar los conocimientos técnicos que se pretenden reivindicar en la solicitud de
patente en forma detallada, de manera que una persona del oficio experta en el tema pueda
llegar a reproducirla (duplicarla) a partir de lo divulgado.
Como ejemplo imagine que se presenta en una feria o exposición industrial una
máquina de lavado de ropa a la cual se carga con un ¼ del jabón en polvo del que
habitualmente se usa en máquinas de su tipo, y solo se exhibe su diseño exterior (carcaza)
junto con la ropa que sale en excelentes condiciones de limpieza.
No se podrá decir que exista allí una divulgación previa que afecte a la novedad de
la futura solicitud de patente, por cuanto no se ha mostrado la invención de manera tal que

4

una persona versada del oficio, pueda determinar qué mecanismos ó piezas existen dentro de
la máquina por el mero hecho de ver en que estado sale la ropa.
Lógicamente en cada caso en particular se deberá evaluar qué tipo de divulgación
previa se ha realizado y si realmente podría afectar el futuro patentamiento de la invención.
Dependerá de la precisión e información develada en dicha oportunidad, el alcance de lo que
luego pueda ser reivindicado en la futura solicitud de patente.

Análisis de la divulgación previa en Argentina.
En Argentina la excepción de “Divulgación Previa” es tratada en el artículo 5 de la
ley de patentes cuyo texto reza:
“La divulgación de una invención no afectará su novedad, cuando dentro de una
año previo a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente, o en su caso, de la
prioridad reconocida, el inventor o sus causahabientes hayan dado a conocer la invención
por cualquier medio de comunicación ó la hayan exhibido en una exposición nacional ó
internacional.

Al

presentarse

la

solicitud

correspondiente

deberá

incluirse

la

documentación comprobatoria en las condiciones que establezca el reglamento de esta ley”.
De este artículo en análisis, podemos hacer las siguientes consideraciones:


Si bien la Divulgación previa opera como excepción al requisito de

novedad por cuanto no la afecta, el análisis del estado de la técnica continúa siendo
a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente ó de la prioridad reconocida. En
tal sentido la excepción de “Divulgación previa” no retrotrae la fecha de
consideración del estado de la técnica a la fecha de presentación en la feria, la fecha
de consideración sigue siendo la fecha de presentación de la solicitud o de la
prioridad en caso de tenerla.


Establece el plazo de 1 año desde la divulgación previa, para presentar

la solicitud.


Puede ser ejercida solo por el inventor ó sus causahabientes, dejando

fuera a cualquier otra divulgación realizada por terceras personas.

5



Puede invocarse cuando se ha dado a conocer la invención por

cualquier medio de comunicación, siendo este punto retomado al analizar el decreto
que reglamenta este artículo.


Puede solicitarse cuando el inventor ó causahabiente haya exhibido la

invención en una exposición nacional ó internacional. Se conoce formalmente como
“exposición internacional”, a los eventos acreditados por la Oficina Internacional de
Exposiciones (BIE ó CIE), de acuerdo con las definiciones, objetivos y reglas que
establece la Convención relativa a las Exposiciones Internacionales. (Ver listado).
Quedará a criterio de cada país establecer lo que se considera exposición nacional.


Debe presentarse la documentación respaldatoria en el mismo

momento que se presenta la solicitud de patente.
Lo hasta aquí desarrollado se complementa con lo establecido en el decreto que
reglamenta la ley de patentes, cuyo artículo 5 dice:
“Si el inventor hubiere divulgado la invención dentro del año previo a la fecha de
presentación de la solicitud deberá declararlo por escrito y presentar junto con la solicitud
de patente:
a)

Un ejemplar o copia del medio de comunicación por el que se divulgó

la invención, si se tratara de un medio gráfico o electrónico”.
b)

Una mención del medio y su localización geográfica, de la

divulgación y de la fecha en que se divulgó, si se tratara de un medio audiovisual.
c)

Constancia fehaciente de la participación del inventor o del

solicitante en la exposición nacional o internacional en que divulgó la invención, su
fecha y el alcance de la divulgación.
La declaración del solicitante tendrá el valor de declaración jurada y en
caso de falsedad, se perderá el derecho a obtener la patente o el certificado de
modelo de utilidad”.
La reglamentación detalla lo que se debe acompañar de acuerdo al tipo de
divulgación realizada junto con la declaración del inventor ó del solicitante, manifestando
que esta última reviste el carácter de declaración jurada y estableciendo como sanción la
pérdida de la patente ó certificado de modelo de utilidad.

6

Se podrá apreciar que aquellos inventores ó solicitantes de patentes que deseen
ampararse en la excepción de Divulgación Previa en Argentina, podrán hacerlo no
excediendo el plazo de un año previo a la presentación de la solicitud de patente o de la
prioridad reconocida.
En el presente trabajo nos enfocamos en el análisis de la excepción de divulgación
previa de las patentes dejando para otra oportunidad y por razones de extensión, el estudio
de los modelos de utilidad.

Estado de la Técnica, Divulgación previa y explotación de la invención en
Argentina.
Retomando lo mencionado al inicio de esta exposición, frecuentemente se acude al
resguardo jurídico de las patentes cuando la información de una invención es difícil de
mantener oculta, es de fácil adquisición por ingeniería reversa y no se puede proteger a
través del régimen de conocimientos técnicos amparados por la obligación de
confidencialidad ó la figura del “Secreto” industrial o comercial.
Avanzando en el tratamiento del tema, se ha reparado en que la mayoría de las
legislaciones de patentes del mundo no especifica si el acto de comercialización de la
invención con anterioridad a la presentación de la patente, estaría alcanzado por la excepción
de divulgación previa o si puede ser considerado como “un acto de divulgación”.
En la legislación Argentina, el acto de comercialización de un invento está
comprendido dentro del concepto de “Explotación” citado en el artículo 4 inciso c) de la ley
24.481 de patentes de invención y modelos de utilidad cuyo texto dice:
“Por estado de la técnica deberá entenderse el conjunto de conocimientos técnicos
que se han hecho públicos antes de la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente o, en
su caso, de la prioridad reconocida, mediante una descripción oral o escrita, por la
explotación o por cualquier otro medio de difusión o de información en el país o en el
extranjero”

7

En ese orden de ideas, realizado el acto de comercialización previo a la
presentación de la solicitud de patente, la invención comercializada forma parte del estado
de la técnica y por lo tanto podrá ser objetada por falta de novedad.
Este requisito de patentabilidad denominado “novedad” está establecido en el
artículo 4) inciso b de la ley Argentina de Patentes que establece:
“Asimismo será considerada novedosa toda invención que no esté comprendida en
el estado de la técnica”.
Realizado el informe de búsqueda por parte del examinador de la Oficina de
Patentes, y en ausencia de información relativa a la divulgación previa de la invención, es de
esperarse que conceda la solicitud presentada al no existir documentos relevantes que
afecten a la patentabilidad de la invención.
No se aclara en los reglamentos, ni leyes de patentes que sucede con los actos de
terceros que divulgan el contenido de la invención sin consentimiento de los titulares de la
patente y que por ser ajenos a ellos no se declaran como divulgación previa.
Si la divulgación se realizó por un acto de un tercero, sin consentimiento del titular
es un poco más complejo, porque puede que el inventor o titular no haya consentido la
divulgación de la invención, no esté en conocimiento que fue divulgada y no lo declare.
Ese sería el peor de los casos, porque el requisito de novedad va a quebrarse igual,
el titular no se va a poder amparar la divulgación previa y solo le quedará ir contra la
persona que ha hecho pública su patente.

Divulgación previa en otros países y la obligatoriedad de declararla.
Idéntico inconveniente se presentará cuando se quiera ejercer los derechos
conferidos por una patente previamente concedida con divulgación previa no declarada,
contra un infractor que se encuentre explotando la invención patentada.

8

Interpuesta y notificada que sea la demanda, los abogados e ingenieros de la
defensa realizarán una búsqueda exhaustiva de información sobre la invención patentada a
fin de invocar la falta de novedad y evitar que el reclamo prospere.
Dependiendo del país en donde se pretenda hacer valer la patente, de encontrar
alguna publicación previa que reúna determinadas condiciones el demandado tendrá la
posibilidad de solicitar la nulidad del registro concedido.
Se agrava la situación en determinados países donde se admite la contrademanda
por fraude con fundamento en la falta de declaración u ocultamiento de la información
conocida por el inventor, o puesta a público por él y en donde se presume ha ocultado a
efectos de que su patente sea concedida.

Divulgación Previa en el Convenio de Paris.
A nivel internacional, encontramos como antecedente de la excepción de
Divulgación Previa a la establecida en el Convenio de Paris.
El 20 de marzo de 1883 se suscribe el Convenio de Paris para la Protección de la
Propiedad Industrial, revisado en Bruselas el 14 de diciembre de 1900, en Washington el 2
de junio de 1911, en La Haya el 6 de noviembre de 1925, en Londres el 2 de junio de 1934,
en Lisboa el 31 de octubre de 1958, en Estocolmo el 14 de julio de 1967 y enmendado el 28
de septiembre de 1979 quedando conformada la Unión de Paris.
A través de este Convenio Internacional varios países se reúnen para establecer los
estándares mínimos de protección y asegurase igualdad de trato en el reconocimiento de sus
derechos de propiedad industrial.
En el siguiente hipervínculo será dirigido al listado de los Países miembros del
Convenio de Paris, al 15 de enero de 2013.
Veamos los artículos del Convenio de Paris relevantes para el tema en estudio:
Artículo 11 Invenciones, modelos de utilidad, dibujos y modelos industriales,
marcas: protección temporaria en ciertas exposiciones internacionales
9

1) Los países de la Unión concederán, conforme a su legislación interna, una
protección temporaria a las invenciones patentables, a los modelos de utilidad, a los dibujos
o modelos industriales, así como a las marcas de fábrica o de comercio, para los productos
que figuren en las exposiciones internacionales oficiales u oficialmente reconocidas,
organizadas en el territorio de alguno de ellos.
2) Esta protección temporaria no prolongará los plazos del Artículo 4. Si, más tarde,
el derecho de prioridad fuese invocado, la Administración de cada país podrá contar el plazo
a partir de la fecha de la introducción del producto en la exposición.
3) Cada país podrá exigir, como prueba de la identidad del objeto expuesto y de la
fecha de introducción, los documentos justificativos que juzgue necesario.

El tratamiento de la Divulgación Previa en la legislación de los países del
mundo.
En el presente trabajo se analizará la excepción de divulgación previa en los
diversos regímenes de patentes establecidos en los países del mundo, como así también los
propios de las oficinas regionales de patentes, entre los cuales podemos identificar dos
grupos principales:
A) Por un lado, legislaciones que admiten como divulgación previa solo a la
realizada en exhibiciones internacionales oficiales. En estos regímenes, otra divulgación
suficiente de la invención realizada fuera del ámbito de exhibiciones oficiales, por el propio
inventor o personas con su consentimiento, invalida la futura patente. Adicionalmente
otorgan una plazo máximo, período de gracia, entre la fecha en que se exhibió la invención y
la fecha en que se presenta la patente o de prioridad reconocida, en la mayoría de 6 meses. Si
la diferencia entre la fecha de presentación de la solicitud patente y la exhibición de la
invención es mayor a 6 meses, la patente será denegada por la Oficina de Patentes que
encuentre información acerca de dicha exhibición con fundamento en la falta de novedad.
B) En otro grupo encontramos países en los cuales la legislación de patentes no
acota la excepción de divulgación previa a exhibiciones oficiales, sino que la define en un
sentido general o amplio, pudiendo comprender divulgación en internet, en televisión, en un
10

concurso de invenciones, en diarios, revistas, folletos, en la vía pública en un testeo de la
invención, etc.
Tengamos en cuenta que la venta ó comercialización de un producto puede no ser
considerada como una “divulgación de la invención” y que por lo tanto el acto de
comercialización de una invención invalidaría su patentamiento posterior.
El concepto de divulgación puede variar según cada idioma y su interpretación
jurídica también, según el Diccionario de la Real Academia española: divulgar proviene del
latín (divulgāre) y su significado es: “Si1. tr. Publicar, extender, poner al alcance del
público algo”.
Continuando el análisis sobre este segundo grupo de países que tienen un criterio
amplio de divulgación, destacamos que también poseen una fecha límite para presentar la
solicitud de patente. Cumplida ó vencida que sea la misma, la patente será denegada por la
autoridad administrativa, independientemente de las cuestiones procesales de cada territorio.
En la mayoría de los países comprendidos en este grupo, se otorga un plazo de 12
meses posteriores a la fecha de la primera divulgación.
C) Otro grupo es el de países cuya legislación admite que el periodo de gracia o de
divulgación previa, sea considerado desde la fecha de prioridad. Esto es muy importante
dado que de no tener en cuenta esta fecha, la solicitud debería ser presentada en cualquier
país extranjero dentro del período de gracia.
Es posible y de hecho sucede, que de dos solicitudes equivalentes, una de ellas
resulte concedida en un país y denegada en otro. Esto está directamente relacionado con el
alcance de la divulgación previa en cada país.
Puede que determinado acto sea considerado como tal en un país y por lo tanto no
ser perjudicial para la presentación de la solicitud con posterioridad y futura concesión de la
patente.
Es por ello que, analizar las legislaciones específicas de cada país nos aclarará el
panorama sobre cuáles son los países en donde tendremos la posibilidad del patentamiento
de aquellas invenciones que han sido divulgadas.

11

En los regímenes donde el autor tiene que la obligación de denunciar toda
divulgación previa por él conocida, como es el caso de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica,
deberá cumplir con esta obligación a su cargo informando inclusive los antecedentes citados
por cualquier oficina de patentes de otro país.

12

País /
Región

Alemania

Argentina

ARIPO
Australia
Austria
Barbados
Bielorrusia
Bélgica
Bolivia
Bosnia
Brasil
Bulgaria
Canadá
Chile

No resultan
perjudiciales

¿El periodo de
gracia cuenta
desde la fecha de
prioridad
invocada?

Artículo de la
Ley de Patentes
que lo define

6

Exhibiciones
internacionales
CIE

No

Sección 3 parte 5

12

Cualquier medio
de comunicación

Si

5

6

Exhibiciones

Si

10

12

Divulgación

No

8

No

3

Periodo
de
Gracia
(meses)

6

Exhibiciones
CIE

12

Divulgación

Si

8

12

Divulgación

No

2

No

5

Si

17

No

9

12
12
6

Exhibiciones
CIE
Divulgación
Exhibiciones
CIE

12

Divulgación

Si

12

6

Exhibiciones

No

11

12

Descripto

No

28.2

12

Divulgación
pública

No

42

13

País /
Región

China

Colombia
Costa Rica
Corea
Cuba
Dinamarca
Ecuador
Egipto
El Salvador
Emiratos
Árabes
Unidos
EPO Oficina
Europea de
Patentes
España
Estados
Unidos
Finlandia
Filipinas
Francia

No resultan
perjudiciales

¿El periodo de
gracia cuenta
desde la fecha de
prioridad
invocada?

Artículo de la
Ley de Patentes
que lo define

6

Exhibiciones
internacionales y
Conf. Cientif.

No

24

12

Divulgación

Si

17

12

Divulgación

Si

3

12

Divulgación

No

30

6

Exposiciones
CIE

No

19

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

Sección 2

12

Divulgación

Si

17

6

Exhibiciones

No

3

12

Divulgación

Si

113

6

Ferias Locales y
Exposiciones
CIE

No

4 , Convenio de
Paris

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

55

6

Exhibiciones y
pruebas

No

7

12

Divulgación

No

102

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

Sección 2

12

Divulgación

Si

Sección 25

No

L611-13

Periodo
de
Gracia
(meses)

6

Exhibiciones
CIE

14

País /
Región

Grecia
Guatemala
Holanda
Honduras
Hong Kong

Hungría

India

Indonesia
Irlanda

Islandia

Israel

Italia

Japón

Lituania

No resultan
perjudiciales

¿El periodo de
gracia cuenta
desde la fecha de
prioridad
invocada?

Artículo de la
Ley de Patentes
que lo define

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

5

12

Divulgación

Si

94

6

Exhibiciones
CIE

No

5

12

Divulgación

Si

9

6

Algunas
exposiciones

No

Sección 95

6

Algunas
exposiciones

Si

3

12

Publicaciones,
Exhibiciones y
Meetings

Si

29 a 32

6/12

Exhibiciones

No

4

No

12

No

6

No

6

No

15

No

30

No

6

Periodo
de
Gracia
(meses)

6

6

6

6

6

6

Exhibiciones
CIE
Exhibiciones
CIE
Exhibiciones,
otros
Exhibiciones
CIE
Publicación
impresa o
electrónica.
Pruebas.
Exhibiciones
CIE

15

País /
Región

Malasia

México

Nicaragua
Noruega
Nueva
Zelandia
Oficina
euroasiática
OAPI
Pakistán
Panamá
Paraguay
Perú
Polonia
Portugal
Reino Unido

No resultan
perjudiciales

¿El periodo de
gracia cuenta
desde la fecha de
prioridad
invocada?

Artículo de la
Ley de Patentes
que lo define

12

Divulgación

No

Sección 14

12

Medio de
comunicación,
Puesta en
práctica.
Exposiciones.

Si

18

12

Divulgación

Si

10

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

Sección 2

6/12

Exhibiciones

Si

59

6

Exhibiciones

Si

6

12

Exhibiciones

No

3

12

Exhibiciones

No

10

12

Divulgación

Si

13

12

Divulgación

Si

7

12

Divulgación

Si

17

6

Exhibiciones

No

15

6

Exhibiciones CIE

No

57

No

2

No

Sección 5

No

5

No

11

No

4

Periodo
de
Gracia
(meses)

6

Republica
Checa

6

República
Dominicana

12

Rumania
Rusia

6
6

Exhibiciones
CIE
Exhibiciones
CIE
Divulgación
Exhibiciones
CIE
Divulgación

16

País /
Región

Singapur

Suecia
Suiza
Sudáfrica
Tailandia

Taiwan /
Taipei

Turquía
Ucrania
Uruguay
Venezuela

Vietnam

Periodo
de
Gracia
(meses)

12

6

No resultan
perjudiciales

¿El periodo de
gracia cuenta
desde la fecha de
prioridad
invocada?

Artículo de la
Ley de Patentes
que lo define

Exhibiciones y
Eventos
científicos

No

14.4

No

Sección 2

Exhibiciones
CIE

6

Exhibiciones CIE

Si

76

No
define

Divulgación

Si

26

12

Exhibiciones

No

Sección 6

6

Publicaciones,
Exhibiciones
oficiales
nacionales,
pruebas

No

22

12

Descripto

Si

8

12

Divulgación

Si

7

12

Divulgación

Si

10

No
define

Exhibiciones CIE

No

Convenio de Paris

No

60

6

Presentaciones
Científica
Exhibición
nacional

17

ARGENTINA

Ley de Patentes:
http://www.inpi.gov.ar/templates/patentes_leycompleta.asp

ARTICULO 5 de la Ley de Patentes - La divulgación de una invención no afectará su
novedad, cuando dentro de UN (1) año previo a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud
de patente o, en su caso, de la prioridad reconocida, el inventor o sus causahabientes
hayan dado a conocer la invención por cualquier medio de comunicación o la hayan
exhibido en una exposición nacional o internacional. Al presentarse la solicitud
correspondiente deberá incluirse la documentación comprobatoria en las condiciones que
establezca el reglamento de esta ley.
ARTICULO 5 del Reglamento de la Ley de Patentes - Si el inventor hubiere divulgado
la invención dentro del año previo a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud deberá
declararlo por escrito y presentar junto con la solicitud de patente:
a) un ejemplar o copia del medio de comunicación por el que se divulgó la invención, si
se tratara de un medio gráfico o electrónico.
b) una mención del medio y su localización geográfica, de la divulgación y de la fecha en
que se divulgó, si se tratara de un medio audiovisual.
c) constancia fehaciente de la participación del inventor o del solicitante en la
exposición nacional o internacional en que divulgó la invención, su fecha y el alcance de
la divulgación.
La declaración del solicitante tendrá el valor de declaración jurada y, en caso de
falsedad, se perderá el derecho a obtener la patente o el certificado de modelo de
utilidad.

Volver

18

CHILE

Ley de Patentes:
http://www.inapi.cl/portal/normativa/603/articles-631_recurso_1.pdf

Artículo 42.- No serán consideradas para efectos de determinar la novedad de la
invención ni el nivel inventivo, las divulgaciones efectuadas dentro de los doce meses
anteriores a la presentación de la solicitud, si la divulgación pública:
a) fue hecha, autorizada o deriva del solicitante de la patente, ó
b) ha sido hecha con motivo o deriva de abusos y prácticas desleales de las que hubiese
sido objeto el solicitante o su causante.

Volver

19

URUGUAY

Ley de Patentes:
http://www.miem.gub.uy/web/marcas-y-patentes/principal/filtros
Art. 10. No afectará la novedad la divulgación de la invención realizada dentro del año
que precede a la fecha de la presentación de la solicitud o de la prioridad que se
invoque, siempre que aquella derive, directa o indirectamente, de actos realizados por el
inventor, sus causahabientes o terceros con base en informaciones obtenidas directa o
indirectamente de aquél.
Volver

20

BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, ECUADOR Y PERU
(COMUNIDAD ANDINA)
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/repositorioaps/0/10/par/leg_norsupra/decis486comcomand.p
df
Artículo 17.- Para efectos de determinar la patentabilidad, no se tomará en
consideración la divulgación ocurrida dentro del año precedente a la fecha de la
presentación de la solicitud en el País Miembro o dentro del año precedente a la fecha
de prioridad, si ésta hubiese sido invocada, siempre que tal divulgación hubiese
provenido de:
a) el inventor o su causahabiente;
b) una oficina nacional competente que, en contravención de la norma que rige la
materia, publique el contenido de la solicitud de patente presentada por el inventor o su
causahabiente; o,
c) un tercero que hubiese obtenido la información directa o indirectamente del inventor
o su causahabiente.

Volver Bolivia
bOLIVIA

Volver Ecuador
bOLIVIA

Volver Colombia
bOLIVIA

21

Volver Perú
bOLIVIA

BRASIL
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9279.htm
Art. 12. Não será considerada como estado da técnica a divulgação de invenção ou
modelo de utilidade, quando ocorrida durante os 12 (doze) meses que precederem a data
de depósito ou a da prioridade do pedido de patente, se promovida:
I - pelo inventor;
II - pelo Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial - INPI, através de publicação
oficial do pedido de patente depositado sem o consentimento do inventor, baseado em
informações deste obtidas ou em decorrência de atos por ele realizados; ou
III - por terceiros, com base em informações obtidas direta ou indiretamente do
inventor ou em decorrência de atos por este realizados.
Parágrafo único. O INPI poderá exigir do inventor declaração relativa à
divulgação, acompanhada ou não de provas, nas condições estabelecidas em
regulamento.

Volver

22

MÉXICO
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.impi.gob.mx/wb/IMPI/ley_de_la_propiedad_industrial_2
Artículo 18.- La divulgación de una invención no afectará que siga considerándose
nueva, cuando dentro de los doce meses previos a la fecha de presentación de la
solicitud de patente o, en su caso, de la prioridad reconocida, el inventor o su
causahabiente hayan dado a conocer la invención, por cualquier medio de
comunicación, por la puesta en práctica de la invención o porque la hayan exhibido en
una exposición nacional o internacional. Al presentarse la solicitud correspondiente
deberá incluirse la documentación comprobatoria en las condiciones que establezca el
reglamento de esta Ley.

Volver

23

ESTADOS UNIDOS
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf
102 (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—(1)
the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention;
or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which
the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was
effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1
year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art
to the claimed invention under subsection (a)
(1) if— (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another
who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a
joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by
the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed
directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Volver

24

CANADA
Ley de Patentes:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/P-4.pdf

28.2 (1) The subject-matter defined by a claim in an application for a patent in Canada (the
“pending application”) must not have been disclosed
(a) more than one year before the filing date by the applicant, or by a person who obtained
knowledge, directly or indirectly, from the applicant, in such a manner that the subjectmatter became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere;
(b) before the claim date by a person not mentioned in paragraph (a) in such a manner that
the subject-matter became available to the public in Canada or elsewhere;
(c) in an application for a patent that is filed in Canada by a person other than the applicant,
and has a filing date that is before the claim date; or
(d) in an application (the “co-pending application”) for a patent that is filed in Canada by a
person other than the applicant and has a filing date that is on or after the claim date if
(i)

the co-pending application is filed by

(A) a person who has, or whose agent, legal representative or predecessor in title has,
previously regularly filed in or for Canada an application for a patent disclosing the
subject-matter defined by the claim, or
(B) a person who is entitled to protection under the terms of any treaty or convention
relating to patents to which Canada is a party and who has, or whose agent, legal
representative or predecessor in title has, previously regularly filed in or for any other
country that by treaty, convention or law affords similar protection to citizens of Canada
an application for a patent disclosing the subject-matter defined by the claim,
(ii) the filing date of the previously regularly filed application is before the claim date of
the pending application,
(iii) the filing date of the co-pending application is within twelve months after the filing
date of the previously regularly filed application, and
(iv) the applicant has, in respect of the copending application, made a request for priority
on the basis of the previously regularly filed application.

Volver
25

CHINA
Ley de Patentes:
http://english.sipo.gov.cn/laws/lawsregulations/201101/t20110119_566244.html
Article 24. Within six months before the date of application, an invention for which an
application is filed for a patent does not lose its novelty under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) It is exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or
recognized by the Chinese Government;
(2) It is published for the first time at a specified academic or technological conference;
and
(3) Its contents are divulged by others without the consent of the applicant.
Volver

26

JAPAN
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/PA.pdf
Article 30 (Exception to lack of novelty of invention)
(1) In the case of an invention which has fallen under any of the items of Article 29
(1) by reason of the fact that the person having the right to obtain a patent has
conducted a test, has made a presentation in a printed publication, has made a
presentation through electric telecommunication lines, or has made a
presentation in writing at a study meeting held by an academic group
designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, such invention shall be
deemed not have fallen under any of the items of Article 29 (1) for the purposes
of Article 29 (1) and (2) for the invention claimed in a patent application which
has been filed by the said person within six months from the date on which the
invention first fell under any of those items.
(1) against the will of the person having the right to obtain a patent, the
preceding paragraph shall also apply for the purposes of Article 29 (1) and (2) to
the invention claimed in the patent application which has been filed by the said
person within six months from the date on which the invention first fell under
any of those paragraphs.
(1) by reason of the fact that the person having the right to obtain a patent has
exhibited the invention at an exhibition held by the Government or a local public
entity hereinafter referred to as the "Government, etc." , an exhibition held by
those who are not the Government, etc. where such exhibition has been
designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, an international exhibition
held in the territory of a country of the Union of the Paris Convention or a
member of the World Trade Organization by its Government, etc. or those who
are authorized thereby to hold such an exhibition, or an international exhibition
held in the territory of a state which is neither of a country of the Union of the
Paris Convention nor a member of the World Trade Organization by its
27
Volver

Government, etc. or those who are authorized thereby where such exhibition has
been designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, paragraph (1) shall
also apply for the purposes of Article 29 (1) and (2) to the invention claimed in
the patent application which has been filed by the said person within six months
from the date on which the invention first fell under any of those items.
4 Any person seeking the application of paragraph (1) or (3) shall submit to the
Commissioner of the Patent Office, at the time of filing of the patent application, a
document stating thereof and, within thirty days from the date of filing of the patent
application, a document proving the fact that the invention which has otherwise fallen
under any of the items of Article 29 (1) is an invention to which paragraph (1) or (3) of
this Article may be applicable.
Volver

28

INDIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/india/patents_act.pdf
29. Anticipation by previous publication.
(1) An invention claimed in a complete specification shall not be deemed to have been
anticipated by reason only that the invention was published in a specification filed in
pursuance of an application for a patent made in India and dated before the 1st day of
January, 1912.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, an invention claimed in a complete specification
shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that the invention was
published before the priority date of the relevant claim of the specification, if the
patentee or the applicant for the patent proves (a) that the matter published was obtained from him, or (where he is not himself the
true and first inventor) from any person from whom he derives title, and was published
without his consent or the consent of any such person; and
(b) where the patentee or the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he
derives title learned of the publication before the date of the application for the patent,
or, in the case of a convention application, before the date of the application for
protection in a convention country, that the application or the application in the
convention country, as the case may be, was made as soon as reasonably practicable
thereafter:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply if the invention was before the priority
date of the claim commercially worked in India, otherwise than for the purpose of
reasonable trial, either by the patentee or the applicant for the patent or any person
from whom he derives title or by any other person with the consent of the patentee or
the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title.
(3) Where a complete specification is filed in pursuance of an application for a patent
made by a person being the true and first inventor or deriving title from him, an
invention claimed in that specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by
reason only of any other application for a patent in respect of the same invention made
in contravention of the rights of that person, or by reason only that after the date of
Volver
29

filing of that other application the invention was used or published, without the consent
of that person, by the applicant in respect of that other application, or by any other
person in consequence of any disclosure of any invention by that applicant.
30. Anticipation by previous communication to Government.
An invention claimed in a complete specification shall not be deemed to have been
anticipated by reason only of the communication of the invention to the Government or
to any person authorized by the Government to investigate the invention or its merits,
or of anything done, in consequence of such a communication, for the purpose of the
investigation.
31. Anticipation by public display, etc.
anticipated by reason only of (a) the display of the invention with the consent of the true and first inventor or a
person deriving title from him at an industrial or other exhibition to which the
provisions of this section have been extended by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette, or the use thereof with his consent for the purpose
of such an exhibition in the place where it is held; or
(b) the publication of any description of the invention in consequence of the display or
use of the invention at any such exhibition as aforesaid;
or
(c) the use of the invention, after it has been displayed or used at any such exhibition as
aforesaid and during the period of the exhibition, by any person without the consent of
the true and first inventor or a person deriving title from him; or
(d) the description of the invention in a paper read by the true and first inventor before
a learned society or published with his consent in the transactions of such a society, if
the application for the patent is made by the true and first inventor or a person
deriving title from him not later than twelve months after the opening of the exhibition
or the reading or publication of the paper, as the case may be.
32. Anticipation by public working.
anticipated by reason only that at any time within one year before the priority date of
the relevant claim of the specification, the invention was publicly worked in India (a) by the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives
title; or

Volver

30

(b) by any other person with the consent of the patentee or applicant for the patent or
any person for whom he derives title, if the working was effected for the purpose of
reasonable trial only and if it was reasonably necessary, having regard to the nature of
the invention, that the working for that purpose should be effected in public.
33. Anticipation by use and publication after provisional specification.
(1) Where a complete specification is filed or proceeded with in pursuance of an
application which was accompanied by a provisional specification or where a complete
specification filed along with an application is treated by virtue of a direction under
sub-section (3) of section 9 as a provisional specification, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, the Controller shall not refuse to grant the patent, and
the patent shall not be revoked or invalidated, by reason only that any matter
described in the provisional specification or in the specification treated as aforesaid as
a provisional specification was used in India or published in India or elsewhere at any
time after the date of the filing of that specification.
(2) Where a complete specification is filed in pursuance of a convention application,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Controller shall not refuse to
grant the patent, and the patent shall not be revoked or invalidated, by reason only
that any matter disclosed in any application for protection in a convention country
upon which the convention application is founded was used in India or published in
India or elsewhere at any time after the date of that application for protection.
34. No anticipation if circumstances are only as described in sections 29, 30, 31 and 32.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Controller shall not refuse to
grant a patent, and a patent shall not be revoked or invalidated by reason only of any
circumstances which, by virtue of section 29 or section 30 or section 31 or section 32, do
not constitute an anticipation of the invention claimed in the specification.
Volver

31

ALEMANIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/germany_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
Section 3
(5) With regard to the application of subsections (1) and (2), disclosure of the invention
shall not be considered if this occurred no earlier than six months preceding the filing
of the application and if this was directly or indirectly
1. due to an evident abuse to the detriment of applicant or his legal predecessor or
2. in consequence of the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor had displayed
the invention at official or officially recognized exhibitions falling within the terms of
the Convention on International Exhibitions signed in Paris on November 22, 1928.
Sentence 1, no. 2, shall apply only if the applicant states, when filing the application,
that the invention has actually been displayed and if applicant files certification of this
within four months following the filing. Notification of the exhibitions referred to in
sentence 1, no. 2, shall be published by the Federal Minister of Justice in the Federal
Law Gazette.
Volver

32

FRANCIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/france_e/e_chiteki_zaisan.pdf
Article L611-13
For the application of Article L611-11, a disclosure of the invention shall not be taken
into consideration in the following two cases:
- if it occurred within the six months preceding filing of the patent application;
- if the disclosure is the result of publication, after the date of that filing, of a prior
patent application and if, in either case, it was due directly or indirectly to:
a) An evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor;
b) The fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor had displayed the invention at an
official, or officially recognized, international exhibition falling within the terms of the
revised Convention on International Exhibitions signed at Paris on November 22, 1928.
However, in the latter case, the displaying of the invention must have been declared at
the time of filing and proof furnished within the time limits and under the conditions
laid down by regulation.

Volver

33

HONG KONG
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/hong_kong_e/e_tokkyo_jourei.pdf
Section 95 Non-prejudicial disclosure in case of standard patent application
(1) For the application of section 94 in the case of a standard patent application, but
subject to section 15(2)(f), a disclosure of the invention shall not be taken into
consideration if it occurred no earlier than 6 months before the deemed date of filing of
the application and if it was due to, or in consequence of-(a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or any proprietor of the invention for
the time being; or
(b) the fact that the applicant or any proprietor of the invention for the time being has
displayed the invention at a prescribed exhibition or meeting.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) shall only have effect if, at the time of filing the corresponding
designated patent application, the applicant stated in accordance with the law of the
designated patent office relating to non-prejudicial disclosure that the invention had
been so displayed.

Volver

34

PORTUGAL
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/portugal_e/e_sangyou.pdf
Article 57 NON-PREJUDICIAL DISCLOSURES
1. The following shall not prejudice the novelty of an invention:
a) Disclosure in official or officially recognised exhibitions falling within the terms of
the Convention of International Exhibitions if the application for the patent is filed in
Portugal within six months;
b) Disclosure resulting from evident abuse of any kind in relation to the inventor or his
successor in title or publications made unduly by the National Industrial Property
Institute.
2. Subparagraph a) of the previous paragraph shall only apply if the applicant proves,
within one month as of the date of filing the patent application, that the invention was
actually displayed or disclosed as set forth in said subparagraph and submits a
certificate issued by the body in charge of the exhibition indicating the date on which
the invention was first displayed or disclosed at the exhibition and the name of the
invention in question.
3. At the applicant‘s request, the time limit indicated in the previous paragraph may be
extended once only for the same period.

Volver

35

REINO UNIDO
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/england_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
2. Novelty
(4) For the purposes of this section the disclosure of matter constituting an invention
shall be disregarded in the case of a patent or an application for a patent if occurring
later than the beginning of the period of six months immediately preceding the date of
filing the application for the patent and either(a) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of, the matter having been
obtained unlawfully or in breach of confidence by any person(i) from the inventor or from any other person to whom the matter was made available
in confidence by the inventor or who obtained it from the inventor because he or the
inventor believed that he was entitled to obtain it; or
(ii) from any other person to whom the matter was made available in confidence by any
person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above or in this sub-paragraph or who obtained
it from any person so mentioned because he or the person from whom he obtained it
believed that he was entitled to obtain it;
(b) the disclosure was made in breach of confidence by any person who obtained the
matter in confidence from the inventor or from any other person to whom it was made
available, or who obtained it, from the inventor;
or
(c) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of the inventor displaying the
invention at an international exhibition and the applicant states, on filing the
application, that the invention has been so displayed and also, within the prescribed
period, files written evidence in support of the statement complying with any
prescribed conditions.
Volver

36

ESPAÑA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/spain/pl/chap2.htm#titleII
7. A disclosure of an invention shall not be taken into consideration in determining the
state of the art if it occurred during the six months preceding the filing of the
application with the Registry of Industrial Property and if it was due to, or in
consequence of
(a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor;
(b) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention at an
official or officially recognized exhibition.
When filing his application, the applicant shall declare that the invention has in fact
been exhibited and, in support of his statement, he shall submit the corresponding
certificate within the period and under the conditions laid down in the regulations;
(c) tests carried out by the applicant or by his legal predecessor, provided that they do
not imply working the invention or offering it for sale.

Volver

37

COREA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.english.html.HtmlApp&c=60201&catmenu=
ek60201
Article 30 (Inventions not Deemed to be Publicly Known, etc.)
(1) If a patentable invention falls under any of the following subparagraphs, in
applying Article 29 (1) or (2) to the invention claimed in the patent application,
on condition that the patent application therefor is filed within 12 months from
the

applicable

date,

the

patent

shall

not

be

deemed

to fall

under

any

subparagraph of Article 29 (1):
1. When a person having the right to obtain a patent has caused his/her
invention to fall under any subparagraph of Article 29 (1): Provided, That this
shall

exclude

cases

where

the

relevant

application

is

laid open,

or

the

registration of a patent for the relevant invention is published in the Republic of
Korea or a foreign country pursuant to any treaty or Act;
2. When the invention falls under any subparagraph of Article 29 (1) against the
intention of the person having the right to obtain a patent;
(2) Any person intending to have paragraph (1) 1 applied shall file a patent
application to that effect and then submit a document proving the relevant facts
to the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office within 30 days
from the filing date of the patent application.

Volver

38

NEW ZEALAND
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/new_zealand_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
59. Previous publication
anticipated by reason only that the invention was published in New Zealand-(a) In a specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in New
Zealand and dated more than 50 years before the date of filing of the first mentioned
specification; or
(b) In a specification describing the invention for the purposes of an application for
protection in any country outside New Zealand made more than 50 years before that
date; or
(c) In any abridgment of or extract from any such specification published under the
authority of the Commissioner or of the Government of any country outside New
Zealand.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, an invention claimed in a complete specification
shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that the invention was
published before the priority date of the relevant claim of the specification, if the
patentee or applicant for the patent proves-(a) That the matter published was obtained from him or (where he himself is not the
true and first inventor) from any person from whom he derives title, and was published
without his consent or the consent of any such person; and (b) Where the patentee or
applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title learned of the
publication before the date of the application for the patent or (in the case of a
convention application) before the date of the application for protection in a convention
country, that the application or the application in a convention country, as the case
may be, was made as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if the invention was before the priority
date of the claim commercially worked in New Zealand, otherwise than for the purpose
of reasonable trial, either by the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person
Volver
39

from whom he derives title or by any other person with the consent of the patentee or
applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title.
(3) Where a complete specification is filed in pursuance of an application for a patent
made by a person being the true and first inventor or deriving title from him, an
invention claimed in that specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by
reason only of any other application for a patent in respect of the same invention, made
in contravention of the rights of that person, or by reason only that after the date of
filing of that other application the invention was used or published, without
the consent of that person, by the applicant in respect of that other application, or by
any other person in consequence of any disclosure of the invention by that applicant.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Commissioner shall not refuse to accept a
complete specification or to grant a patent, and a patent shall not be revoked or
invalidated, by reason only of any circumstances which, by virtue of this section, do not
constitute an anticipation of the invention claimed in the specification.
60. Previous communication, display, or working
anticipated by reason only of the communication of the invention to a Government
Department or to any person authorised by a Government Department to investigate
the invention or its merits, or of anything done, in consequence of such a
communication, for the purpose of the investigation.
anticipated by reason only of-(a) The display of the invention with the consent of the true and first inventor at an
international or industrial exhibition declared as such by the Commissioner by notice
in the Journal (whether the exhibition is held in New Zealand or elsewhere), or the use
thereof with the consent of the true and first inventor for the purposes of such an
exhibition in the place where it is held; or
(b) The publication of any description of the invention in consequence of the display or
use of the invention at any such exhibition as aforesaid;
or
(c) The use of the invention, after it has been displayed or used at any such exhibition
as aforesaid and during the period of the exhibition, by any person without the consent
of the true and first inventor; or
(d) The description of the invention in a paper read by the true and first inventor before
a learned society or published with his consent in the transactions of such a society,-- if
Volver
40

the application for the patent is made by the true and first inventor or a person
deriving title from him not later than 6 months after the opening of the exhibition or
the reading or publication of the paper,
as the case may be.
anticipated by reason only that, at any time within one year before the priority date of
the relevant claim of the specification, the invention was publicly worked in New
Zealand-(a) By the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives
title; or
(b) By any other person with the consent of the patentee or applicant for the patent or
any person from whom he derives title,-if the working was effected for the purpose of reasonable trial only and if it was
reasonably necessary, having regard to the nature of the invention, that the working
for that purpose should be effected in public.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Commissioner shall not refuse to accept a
complete specification or to grant a patent, and a patent shall not be revoked or
invalidated, by reason only of any circumstances which, by virtue of this section, do not
constitute an anticipation of the invention claimed in the specification.

Volver

41

TAIPEI
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/en/AllInOne_Show.aspx?path=2531&guid=98c50f60-3afd-46ec9a13-14289d2ba135&lang=en-us
Article 22 Substantial conditions
An invention which is industrially applicable may be granted a patent upon application
in accordance with this Act, except for the following:
1. the invention was disclosed in a publication prior to the filing of the patent
application;
2. the invention was publicly exploited prior to the filing of the patent application; or
3. the invention was publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application.
Where an invention can be easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art based
on prior art, a patent shall not be granted for such an invention notwithstanding the
preceding paragraph.
Any of the following events shall not be deemed as one prescribed in Paragraph 1 or the
preceding paragraph, which may preclude the grant of an invention patent, provided
that the concerned patent application is filed within six months from the date of the
event's occurrence:
1. the invention concerned was publicly disclosed as a result of conducting a test;
2. the invention was disclosed in a publication;
3. the invention was displayed at an exhibition held or recognized by the Government;
or
4. the invention was disclosed without the consent of the applicant.
An applicant claiming exemption as set forth in Item 1 through Item 3 of the preceding
paragraph shall state the fact and the relevant date in the patent application at the
time of filing and submit evidentiary documents within the time limit specified by the
Specific Patent Agency.
Volver

42

DINAMARCA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/denmark/e_tokkyo.pdf
Section 2
(6) Patents may, however, be granted for inventions made available to the public if that
occurred within the 6 months preceding the filing of the application, and it was in
consequence of:
(i) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor,
or
(ii) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention at an
official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the terms of the
Convention on International Exhibitions, signed at Paris on 22 November 1928.

Volver

43

FINLANDIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/finland/patents_act.pdf
Section 2 (6.6.1980/407)
Patents may be granted, however, for inventions made available to the public within
the six months preceding the filing date of the application if disclosure was the result
of:
(1) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his predecessor in
title; or
(2) the fact that the applicant or his predecessor in title had displayed the invention at
an official, or officially recognized, international exhibition falling within the terms of
the Convention on International Exhibitions signed at Paris on November 22, 1928
(Finnish Treaty Series 36/37).
Volver

44

SUECIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/sweden/e_tokkyo.pdf
Section 2
A patent may be granted despite the fact that the invention was made available to the
public within six months prior to the filing of the application, (1) in consequence of
evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his predecessor in title, or (2) because the
invention was displayed by the applicant or his predecessor in title at an official, or
officially recognized, international exhibition falling within the terms of the Convention
on International Exhibitions signed at Paris on November 22, 1928.

Volver

45

VIETNAM
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.noip.gov.vn/noip/resource.nsf/vwSelectImageResourceUrl/6A7273451828D7
9C472576720020482D/$FILE/Intelletual%20Property%20Law%20of%20Viet%20Nam%
202005.pdf
Article 60.- Novelty of inventions
3. An invention shall not be considered having lost its novelty if it is published in the
following cases, provided that the invention registration application is filed within 6
months from the date of publication:
a/ It is published by another person without permission of the person having the right
to register it defined in Article 86 of this Law;
b/ It is published in the form of a scientific presentation by the person having the right
to register it defined in Article 86 of this Law;
c/ It is displayed at a national exhibition of Vietnam or at an official or officially
recognized international exhibition by the person having the right to register it defined
in Article 86 of this Law.
Volver

46

SUIZA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/switzerland/pl/chap1.htm#art7
Art. 7b
Where the invention has been made accessible to the public during the six months prior
to the application date or priority date, this disclosure shall not be included in the state
of the art when it is the direct or indirect result of:
(a) a manifest abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor; or
(b) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention at an
official or officially recognized exhibition within the meaning of the Convention of
November 22, 1928, concerning international exhibitions, where he has declared the
fact at the time of filing and has produced sufficient supporting evidence in good time.
Volver

47

OFICINA EUROPEA DE PATENTES
Ley de Patentes:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:299:0025:0033:EN:PDF
Article 55
Non-prejudicial disclosures
(1) For the application of Article 54, a disclosure of the invention shall not be taken
Into consideration if it occurred no earlier than six months preceding the filing of the
European patent application and if it was due to, or in consequence of:
(a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor, or
(b) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention
at an official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the
terms of the Convention on international exhibitions signed at Paris on 22
November 1928 and last revised on 30 November 1972.
(2) In the case of paragraph 1(b), paragraph shall apply only if the applicant states,
when filing the European patent application, that the invention has been so displayed
and files a supporting certificate within the time limit and under the conditions laid
down in the Implementing Regulations.

Volver

48

OFICINA EUROASIATICA DE PATENTES
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/eurasian/patent_regulations.pdf
Rule 3 Criteria of Patentability of an Invention
(1) In accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, a Eurasian patent shall be granted
for any invention that is novel, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.
(2) Disclosure of information relating to the invention that otherwise would affect its
patentability shall not do so where the information relating to the subject matter of the
invention has been made available to the public not earlier than during the six months
preceding the filing date of, or the priority date claimed for, the Eurasian application,
by the inventor or applicant or by any person having obtained the information directly
or indirectly from them. The burden of proof of the circumstances of disclosure shall be
on the applicant.
Volver

49

AFRICAN REGIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ORGANIZATION (ARIPO)
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/aripo_e/e_harare_gitei.pdf
(10) Inventions for which patents are granted by the Office shall be new, shall involve
an inventive step and shall be industrially applicable.
An invention is new if it is not anticipated by prior art. Everything made available to
the public anywhere in the world by means of written disclosure (including drawings
and other illustrations) or by use or exhibition shall be considered prior art provided
that such making available occurred before the date of filing of the application or, if
priority is claimed, before the priority date validly claimed in respect thereof and
further provided that a disclosure of the invention at an official or officially recognized
exhibition shall not be taken into consideration if it occurred not more than six months
before the date of filing of the application or, if priority is claimed, before the priority
date validly claimed in respect thereof.
Volver

50

AFRICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
(OAPI)
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/oapi_e/e_bangui_kyoutei.pdf
Article 3 Novelty
(1) An invention shall be new if it has not been anticipated by prior art.
(2) Prior art shall consist of everything made available to the public, in any place and
by any means or method, before the filing date either of the patent application or of a
patent application filed abroad the priority of which has been validly claimed.
(3) The novelty of an invention shall not be denied if, during the 12 months preceding
the date specified in paragraph (2) above, the invention has been the subject of a
disclosure resulting from
(a) an obvious violation committed against the applicant or his predecessor in title;
(b) the fact that the applicant or his predecessor in title has displayed it at an official
or officially recognized international exhibition.

Volver

51

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/arab_e/e_tokkyo_ishou.pdf
Article (4)
A letters patent shall be awarded to any new invention resulting from an innovative
idea or inventive step in all fields of technology, provided that such an idea or inventive
step has a scientific basis and is capable of industrial application. The invention shall
be deemed industrially applicable in its broadest term if used or utilized in such fields
as agriculture, fisheries, handicrafts, and services.

Volver

52

UCRANIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/ukraine_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
Article 7. Patentability Requirements to an Invention, Utility Model
1. An invention meets the patentability requirements provided that it is new, involves
an inventive step and is industrially applicable.
5. The state of the art also includes a content of any application for granting a patent in
Ukraine (including an international application, in which Ukraine is designated) in the
wording, in which this application has been primarily filed, provided that the date of its
filing (if the priority has been claimed, the date of the priority) is prior to the date
referred to in Paragraph 4 of this Article, and that the application has been already
published on or after this date.
6. The recognition of an invention (utility model) as a patentable one does not depend
on the disclosure of information on the invention (utility model) by an inventor or by a
person which has received such an information directly from an inventor or indirectly
within 12 months before the date of filing of the application with the Office or, if the
priority has been claimed, before the priority date. In this case, the person, who is
interested in using this provision, is obliged to prove the circumstances of the
disclosure of information.
Volver

53

TAILANDIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/thailand/patents_act.pdf
Section 6
An invention is new if it does not form part of the state of the art.
A disclosure which was due to, or made in consequence of, the subject matter having
been obtained unlawfully, or a disclosure which was made by the inventor, or made in
consequence of, the inventor displaying the invention at an international exhibition or
an official exhibition if such disclosure was done within twelve months before the filing
of an application for the patent, shall not be deemed to be a disclosure under subsection
(2) above.
Volver

54

SUDAFRICA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/south_africa/patents_act.pdf
26. Prior knowledge or publication of invention excused in certain circumstances
A patent shall not be invalid by reason only of the fact that the invention in respect of
which the patent was granted or any part thereof was disclosed, used or known prior to
the priority date of the invention (a) if the patentee or his or her predecessor in title proves that such knowledge was
acquired or such disclosure or use was made without his or her knowledge or consent,
and that the knowledge acquired or the matter disclosed or used was derived or
obtained from him or her, and, if he or she learnt of the disclosure, use or knowledge
before the priority date of the invention, that he or she applied for and obtained
protection or his or her invention with all reasonable diligence after learning of the
disclosure, use or knowledge; or (b) as a result of the invention being worked in the
Republic by way of reasonable technical trial or experiment by the applicant or
patentee or the predecessor in title of the applicant or patentee.
[S. 26 substituted by s. 32 of Act 38/1997.]
Volver

55

POLONIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/poland_e/e_sangyou.pdf
Article 15
1. Priority to obtain a patent, a right of protection or a right in registration shall be
determined, on conditions laid down in relevant international agreements, according to
the date on which the invention, the utility model or the industrial design was
displayed, in Poland or elsewhere in the world, at an official or officially recognised
exhibition, provided that the patent, utility model or industrial design application has
subsequently been filed with the Patent Office within six months of that date.
Article 16
Where an invention, a utility model or an industrial design, being the subject of the
first duly filed application, has previously been displayed on an exhibition and since the
date of display up to the filing date it has enjoyed the provisional protection provided
for under the Paris Convention, the priority to obtain a patent, a right of protection or a
right in registration, referred to in Article 14, as well as the start of the time limits for
filing applications with the Patent Office provided therein, shall be determined
according to the date at which the invention, utility model or industrial design has been
displayed at the exhibition concerned.
Volver

56

ITALIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/italy_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
Art. 15. Prior Disclosure; Priority
For the application of Article 14, a disclosure of the invention shall not be taken into
consideration if it occurred in the six months preceding the filing of the patent
application and if it was due to, or in consequence of, an evident abuse to the prejudice
of the applicant or his legal predecessor.
The fact that the disclosure occurred at official or officially recognized exhibitions
falling within the terms of the Convention on International Exhibitions signed at Paris
on November 22, 1928, and its later revisions, also shall not be taken into
consideration.
With respect to inventions for which priority is claimed under international
conventions, the existence of the novelty requirement provided for under Article 14
must be evaluated with reference to the starting date of the priority.

Volver

57

INDONESIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/indonesia_e/e_tokkyo.pdf
Article 4
(1) An invention is considered to be unpublished, if, within a maximum period of 6 (six)
months before the filing date;
a. the invention has been shown in an international exhibition in Indonesia or abroad,
which is official, or acknowledged to be official or in an national exhibition in Indonesia,
which is official or acknowledged to be official;
b. the invention has been used in Indonesia by the inventor within the framework of
experimentation for research and development purposes.
(2) An invention is also considered to be unpublished, if, within a period of 12 (twelve)
months before the filing date, it was published by any other person by way of breaching
an obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the relevant invention.
Volver

58

El SALVADOR
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/text.jsp?file_id=129724

Art. 113.- Una invención se considera novedosa cuando no exista con anterioridad en el
estado de la técnica.
El estado de la técnica comprenderá todo lo que haya sido divulgado o hecho accesible
al público, en cualquier lugar del mundo, mediante una publicación tangible, una
divulgación oral, la venta o comercialización, el uso, o por cualquier otro medio, antes
de la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente en le país o, en su caso, antes de
la fecha de presentación de la solicitud extranjera cuya prioridad se reivindicará.
También quedará comprendido dentro del estado de la técnica, el contenido de una
solicitud de patente en trámite ante el Registro de Comercio, cuya fecha de
presentación o, en su caso, de prioridad, fuese anterior a la de la solicitud que se
estuviere examinando, pero sólo en la medida en que ese contenido quede incluido en la
solicitud de fecha anterior cuando ésta fuese publicada.
Para efectos de la pérdida de novedad, no se tomará en consideración la divulgación que
hubiese ocurrido dentro del año precedente a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud en
el país o, en su caso, dentro del año precedente a la fecha de la solicitud cuya prioridad
se reivindicará, siempre que tal divulgación hubiese resultado directa o indirectamente
de actos realizados por el propio inventor o sus causahabientes, o de un abuso de
confianza, incumplimiento de contrato o actos ilícitos cometido contra alguno de ellos.
La divulgación resultante de una publicación hecha por una oficina de propiedad
industrial en un procedimiento de concesión de una patente, no queda comprendida en
la excepción del inciso anterior, salvo que la solicitud que dio lugar a esa publicación
hubiese sido presentada por quien no tenía derecho a obtener la patente, o que la
publicación se hubiese hecho por un error de esa oficina de propiedad industrial.
Volver

59

COSTA RICA
Ley de Patentes:

3.
El estado de la técnica no comprenderá lo divulgado dentro del año anterior a la fecha
de presentación de la solicitud en Costa Rica o, en su caso, dentro del año anterior a la
prioridad aplicable, siempre que tal divulgación resulte, directa o indirectamente, de
actos realizados por el propio inventor o su causahabiente o del incumplimiento de
contrato o acto ilícito cometido contra alguno de ellos. (Párrafo reformado por Ley N°
7979 de 6 de enero de 2000, art. 2 inc. b)
industrial en procedimiento de concesión de una patente, quedará comprendida en el
estado de la técnica, excepto para el caso del solicitante de la patente, o cuando la
solicitud en cuestión haya sido presentada por quien no tenía derecho a obtener la
patente o cuando la publicación se haya hecho indebidamente.
Volver

60

REPUBLICA DOMINICANA
Ley de Patentes:
Artículo 5.- Novedad.
1) Una invención es novedosa cuando no existe previamente en el estado de la
técnica.
3) Para determinar el estado de la técnica no se tendrá en cuenta lo que se hubiese
divulgado dentro del año precedente a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud en la
República Dominicana, siempre que tal divulgación hubiese resultado directa o
indirectamente de actos realizados por el propio inventor o su causahabiente, o de un
abuso de confianza, incumplimiento de contrato o acto ilícito cometido contra alguno de
ellos.
4) La divulgación resultante de una publicación hecha por una oficina de propiedad
industrial dentro del procedimiento de concesión de una patente, no queda
comprendida en la excepción del numeral precedente, salvo que la solicitud se hubiese
presentado por quien no tenía derecho a la patente, o que la publicación se hubiese
hecho indebidamente.
Volver

61

NICARAGUA
Ley de Patentes:
Excepciones al Estado Actual de la Técnica
10. El estado actual de la técnica no comprenderá lo que se hubiese divulgado dentro
del año anterior a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente o, en su caso,
dentro del año anterior a la fecha de prioridad aplicable, siempre que tal divulgación
hubiese resultado directa o indirectamente de actos realizados por el propio inventor o
su causahabiente, o de un incumplimiento de contrato o acto ilícito cometido contra
alguno de ellos.
Excepción Especial
11. La divulgación resultante de una publicación hecha por una autoridad competente
dentro del procedimiento de concesión de una patente no quedará comprendida en la
excepción del artículo anterior, salvo que la solicitud se hubiese presentado por quien
no tenía derecho a obtener la patente; o que la publicación se hubiese hecho por un
error de esa autoridad.

Volver

62

PANAMA
Ley de Patentes:
Artículo 13. Para efectos de determinar la patentabilidad de una invención, no se
tomará en consideración la divulgación ocurrida, en cualquier lugar del mundo, dentro
de los doce meses anteriores a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud en Panamá o, en
su caso, anteriores a la fecha de la prioridad reconocida que se reivindique de
conformidad con esta Ley, siempre que tal divulgación hubiese resultado, directa o
indirectamente, de actos realizados por el propio inventor o su causahabiente, o de un
abuso de confianza, incumplimiento de contrato o acto ilícito cometido contra alguno de
ellos.
industrial, en un procedimiento de concesión de una patente, no queda comprendida en
la excepción de este artículo, salvo que la solicitud que dio lugar a esa publicación
hubiese sido presentada por quien no tenia derecho a obtener la patente, o que la
publicación se hubiese hecho por error de esa oficina de propiedad industrial.

Volver

63

PARAGUAY
Ley de Patentes:
Artículo 7.- De la novedad. Se considerará que una invención tiene novedad si ella no
tiene anterioridad en el estado de la técnica.
El estado de la técnica no comprenderá lo que se hubiese divulgado dentro del año que
precede a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud en Paraguay o, en su caso, dentro del
año que precede a la fecha de la solicitud cuya prioridad se invocara, siempre que tal
divulgación hubiese resultado directa o indirectamente de actos realizados por el propio
inventor o su causahabiente, o de un incumplimiento de contrato o acto ilícito cometido
contra alguno de ellos.
industrial en un procedimiento de concesión de una patente no queda comprendida en
la excepción del párrafo precedente, salvo que la solicitud objeto de esa publicación
hubiese sido presentada por quien no tenía derecho a obtener la patente, o que la
publicación se hubiese hecho por un error imputable a esa oficina.

Volver

64

RUMANIA
Ley de Patentes:
Art. 11 - For the application of Art. 10, the disclosure of the invention shall not be
taken into consideration if it occurred within the six months preceding the filing of the
patent application, and if was due to or in consequence of:
a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor;
b) the fact that the applicant or his legal predecessor has displayed the invention at an
official or officially recognized international exhibition falling within the terms of the
Convention on international exhibitions signed at Paris on 22 November 1928 with the
subsequent revisions.
The provisions of paragraph 1 b) shall be applicable only if the applicant states, when
filing the patent application, that the inventions has been actually displayed and if he
files a document supporting his statement within the time limit and under the
conditions provided for by the implementing regulations concerning this Law.

Volver

65

SINGAPUR
Ley de Patentes:
Novelty
14.—(1) An invention shall be taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the
art.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the disclosure of matter constituting an invention
shall be disregarded in the case of a patent or an application for a patent if occurring
later than the beginning of the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of
filing the application for the patent and either —
(a) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of, the matter having been
obtained
unlawfully or in breach of confidence by any person —
(i) from the inventor or from any other person to whom the matter was made available
in confidence by the inventor or who obtained it from the inventor because he or the
inventor believed that he was entitled to obtain it; or (ii) from any other person to
whom the matter was made available in confidence by any person mentioned in subparagraph (i) or in this sub-paragraph or who obtained it from any person so mentioned
because he or the person from whom he obtained it believed that he was entitled to
obtain it;
(b) the disclosure was made in breach of confidence by any person who obtained the
matter in confidence from the inventor or from any other person to whom it was made
available, or who obtained it, from the inventor;
(c) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of, the inventor displaying the
invention at an international exhibition and the applicant states, on filing the
application, that the invention has been so displayed and also, within the prescribed
period, files written evidence in support of the statement complying with any
prescribed condition; or
(d) the disclosure was due to, or made in consequence of, the inventor describing the
invention in a paper read by him or another person with his consent or on his behalf

Volver
66

before any learned society or published with his consent in the transactions of any
learned society.
(5) In subsection (4) (d), ―learned society‖ includes any club or association constituted in
Singapore or elsewhere whose main object is the promotion of any branch of learning or
science.
(6) In this section, references to the inventor include references to any proprietor of the
invention for the time being.
(7) In the case of an invention consisting of a substance or composition for use in a
method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or of diagnosis
practised on the human or animal body, the fact that the substance or composition
forms part of the state of the art shall not prevent the invention from being taken to be
new if the use of the substance or composition in any such method does not form part of
the state of the art.
Volver

67

PAKISTAN
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/es/details.jsp?id=3478
8. Novelty.- (1) An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the
state of the art.
(2) The state of the art shall comprise(a) everything disclosed to the public anywhere in the world, by publication in tangible
form or by oral disclosure, by use or in any other way, prior to the filing or, where
appropriate, the priority date, of the application claiming the invention; or
(b) contents of the complete specification and priority documents published under
section 21 of an application filed in Pakistan;
(c) traditionally developed or existing knowledge available or in possession of a local or
indigenous community.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (2), disclosure of a patentable
invention in respect of goods shall not constitute ‗state of the art‘ if an article is
exhibited at an official or officially recognized international exhibition within twelve
months preceding the date of filing of an application for grant of patent. If later on, the
right of priority is invoked, then the period shall start from the date of introduction of
the article into the exhibition.

The Controller may require proof, with such

documentary evidence as considered necessary, of the identity of the article exhibited
and the date of its introduction into the
exhibition.
(4) In this section references to the inventor include references to any proprietor of the
invention for the time being.
Volver

68

GRECIA
Ley de Patentes:
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/s_sonota_e/fips_e/pdf/greece/patent_law.pdf
Art. 5
9. Patents shall be granted also for an invention which has been disclosed no earlier
than six months preceding the filing of the patent application, if the disclosure was due
to:
a. an evident abuse of the rights of the applicant or his/her legal predecessor;
b. the fact that the invention was displayed at an officially recognised international
exhibition falling within the terms of the convention on international exhibitions signed
in Paris on 22 November 1928 and ratified by Law 5562/32 (Official Journal, 221).
In said case, when filing the application, the applicant should state that the invention
has been so displayed and should file the relevant supporting certificate.
10. The disclosure of paragraph 9 does not affect the novelty of the invention provided
for in paragraph 3.
Volver

69

GUATEMALA
Ley de Patentes:
Novedad
94. Se considera que una invención tiene novedad si ella no se encuentra en el estado
de la técnica.
El estado de la técnica comprenderá todo lo que haya sido divulgado o hecho accesible
al público en cualquier lugar del mundo y por cualquier medio, antes de la fecha de
presentación de la solicitud de patente en el país o, en su caso, antes de la fecha de
prioridad aplicable. También quedará comprendido dentro del estado de la técnica el
contenido de otra solicitud de patente presentada ante el Registro, cuya fecha de
presentación o, en su caso, de prioridad fuese anterior a la de la solicitud bajo
consideración, siempre que aquella fuese publicada.
Para determinar el estado de la técnica no se tomará en cuenta lo que se hubiese
divulgado dentro del año anterior a la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de patente
o, en su caso, de la fecha de prioridad aplicable, siempre que tal divulgación hubiese
resultado directa o indirectamente de actos realizados por el propio inventor o su
causahabiente, o bien, de un incumplimiento de contrato por parte de un tercero o de
un acto ilícito cometido contra alguno de ellos.
Tampoco se tomará en cuenta la divulgación resultante de una publicación hecha por
una oficina de propiedad industrial en el extranjero, a raíz de un procedimiento de
concesión de una patente, si la solicitud objeto de esa publicación hubiese sido
presentada por quien no tenía derecho a obtener la patente, o que la publicación se
hubiese hecho por un error imputable a esa oficina de propiedad industrial.

Volver

70

Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales

Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales

Similaire à Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales (20)

Plus de Pablo Paz

Plus de Pablo Paz (17)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Divulgación previa de una invencion y sus implicaciones internacionales