直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

The Impact of the Effective Filing Date Under the AIA

April 12, 2013

Authored and Edited by Anthony J. Lombardi; Michele C. Bosch

The effective filing date of a claimed invention is a central concept relevant to several key provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA). It determines the universe of prior art available against a claim or application and also renders a claim or application eligible for the new first‑inventor-to-file provisions. The effective filing date is the earlier of (1) the filing date of a patent or patent application including a claim to the invention, or (2) the filing date of the earliest priority application (i.e., the earliest filed provisional, nonprovisional, international, or foreign application) to which a patent or patent application is entitled to a right of priority for the claimed invention. In general, this means a claim is entitled to the filing date of the earliest filed application supporting that claim.

Under the AIA’s novelty requirement, an applicant cannot receive a patent if its claimed invention was described in a patent or printed publication, or was in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. An inventor, however, may rely on a one‑year grace period, which disqualifies certain disclosures by the inventor as prior art to the inventor. The grace period is designed to ensure that the patentability of an invention is not defeated by an inventor’s own disclosures, disclosures of information obtained from the inventor, or third-party disclosures that include the inventor’s previous public disclosures. To qualify, the disclosure by the inventor or of the inventor’s work must have been made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention. The effective filing date is also central to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, which prohibit an applicant from receiving a patent if its claimed invention was described in a patent or a published application naming another inventor filed before the filing date of the application containing the claimed invention. This rule applies to any patent or patent application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Any application that claims priority to such an application also falls under the first-inventor-to-file provisions.

As this overview demonstrates, before accurately applying the new AIA rules, one must first determine the effective filing date of a claim.

Tags

First to file (FTF)

Contacts

Anthony J. Lombardi
Of Counsel
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2779
Email
Michele C. Bosch
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4193
Email

Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP