Conference Disclosure, Grace Period, and a Race to the Philippine Patent Office
Dr. Elena Salcedo, a materials scientist at a Philippine state university, developed a biodegradable food container from mango-kernel starch. On 15 March 2024 she presented the formulation at a national science conference and uploaded the abstract and poster to the conference website; the poster disclosed the key starch-to-plasticizer ratio. The university's IP office filed PH patent application 1-2025-000123 on 20 January 2025. On 2 May 2024, a private company filed PH application 1-2024-000456 for a similar container. The examiner cited the conference abstract against both applications. The company argues that its earlier filing date gives it priority and that the university's 1 June 2024 journal article is also prior art. The university invokes the 12-month grace period. The client asks whether the university can still obtain a patent, what happens to the company's application, and how to respond if the examiner maintains the citation. No priority claim was made.
1. Apply the grace period and prior-art rules to the 15 March 2024 conference disclosure and the 1 June 2024 journal article. Does either destroy novelty of the university's 20 January 2025 application?
Read the worked answer
The critical date is the filing date, 20 January 2025. The 15 March 2024 conference disclosure is 10 months and 5 days earlier, and the 1 June 2024 journal article is about 7 months and 20 days earlier. Both fall within the 12-month grace period counted backward from the filing date. If the disclosures were made by Dr. Salcedo or by someone authorized by her, they are excepted from prior art and do not destroy novelty. The poster upload appears to be her own act; the journal article is hers as well. The examiner should therefore withdraw the abstract citation if the university proves the disclosure, its date, and the inventor's identity. Proof should include the conference program, the webpage timestamp, a declaration by Dr. Salcedo, and the article itself. The university should not rely on the grace period without preserving this evidence. If any claim is still anticipated by a feature that was not part of the excepted disclosure, the claim should be narrowed to that feature rather than relying only on the exception.
2. What is the legal effect of the company's 2 May 2024 application on the university's application, and what is the likely fate of the company's application?
Read the worked answer
The company filed on 2 May 2024, before the university filed on 20 January 2025, but after the university's 15 March 2024 public disclosure. The company cannot invoke the grace period because it is not the inventor or the inventor's successor in title. Its application is therefore anticipated by the 15 March 2024 conference disclosure, which is prior art as against the company. The company's earlier filing date does not cure that defect. As an earlier-filed Philippine application, the company's application could be cited against the university if it is published, but the university should contest that citation: the company's application is not a valid prior filing for the same invention because it lacks novelty over the university's own excepted disclosure. The company's application is vulnerable to rejection or cancellation. The university should monitor its publication and consider a third-party observation or opposition if the application proceeds. The practical conclusion is that the company's earlier filing does not give it a valid priority right over the university's invention.
3. If the examiner maintains the citation, outline the response and evidence the university should file.
Read the worked answer
The response should do three things. First, invoke the grace period expressly and map each date: 15 March 2024 and 1 June 2024 are both less than 12 months before 20 January 2025. Second, submit evidence of the disclosing acts and their dates: the conference program, archived webpage with timestamp, the abstract and poster, the journal article, and a signed declaration by Dr. Salcedo identifying her as the inventor and the source of the disclosures. Third, address the company's application separately: request its status, argue that it is anticipated by the 15 March 2024 disclosure, and ask the examiner not to treat an invalid earlier application as prior art against the university. If the examiner still refuses, the university should consider amending the claims to include a specific feature from the poster or article that is not shown in the company's specification, while preserving the original filing date. The response should be supported by a claim chart comparing the cited disclosures with the amended claims.