Executive Summary: This article compares how the USPTO and EPO treat “secret prior art”—earlier-filed patent applications that were not public when a later application was filed but later acquire prior-art effect after publication. In the United States, AIA § 102(a)(2) treats qualifying U.S. patent documents, including certain PCT publications designating the United States, as prior art as of their effective filing dates if they name another inventor; such references may be u

Executive Summary: For inventions developed in or across the United States and China, the first patent filing decision should begin with a territorial invention-location analysis, not with inventor nationality, corporate headquarters, or preferred filing venue. The United States generally requires a foreign filing license before filing abroad for an invention made in the United States, unless a U.S. filing has been pending for at least six months without a secrecy order or an

Executive Summary: Examiner interviews are a valuable prosecution tool, but their strategic significance varies sharply by jurisdiction. The central question is not simply whether an examiner will communicate with the applicant, but whether that communication carries procedural consequence, decisional authority, file-history effect, or merely informs the next formal filing. At the USPTO, interviews are routine and often powerful, but they must be recorded and may create prose

Executive Summary: This article explains why responding to an Office Action in ex parte reexamination requires a different strategy than responding during ordinary patent prosecution. In ordinary prosecution, the applicant is generally trying to obtain commercially useful claim scope and may have procedural flexibility through amendment, RCE practice, or continuation practice. In reexamination, by contrast, the patent owner is defending issued rights—often in parallel with li

Executive Summary: This article argues that Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (“SMEDs”) can be valuable prosecution tools for building a factual record in response to § 101 rejections, but only if they are used with discipline. A SMED should not ask an inventor or expert to declare that claims are patent eligible; rather, it should provide claim-tethered, corroborated technical facts showing how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the specification an