top | item 34971272

(no title)

Gorbzel | 3 years ago

> I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented.

Reduction to practice is absolutely a requirement of patent law in the US.

discuss

order

mauvehaus|3 years ago

That seems at odds with TFA itself, which claims "Ford itself recently announced that it was giving up on its goal of developing full self-driving technology, at a cost of $2.7 billion."

Perhaps the standard for "reduction to practice [0]" is a little looser than I'm imagining. I can't even see how this would be covered by sufficiency of disclosure[1] since the apparent non-existence of level 4 or 5 autonomy suggests that no person skilled in the art[2] yet exists.

If it isn't obvious at this juncture: IANAL.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...

lolinder|3 years ago

Yes, but it doesn't mean you have to actually have built anything or even be able to build anything. The filing of the patent application is considered a constructive reduction to practice:

> Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application.

https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e207753.html