Most inventors make a critical mistake when they develop a breakthrough process: they assume it can’t be patented because it’s “just a method.” This misconception costs innovators billions in lost exclusivity every year. Method patents actually protect unique processes and procedures rather than tangible products or innovative business practices, and they’re behind some of the most valuable intellectual property in history.
But here’s what most inventors don’t realize: not all patents are created equal. Weak method patents don’t just fail to protect – they actively help competitors by creating roadmaps to beat you faster and cheaper. Meanwhile, strategic, well-engineered Litigation Quality Patent® services that meet the highest standards deter competitors and generate substantial licensing revenue.
Amazon’s “1-Click” checkout method generated substantial licensing revenue for nearly two decades. Qualcomm’s patent licensing segment earned $5.3 billion in 2023 alone, primarily from patented communication methods. The CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing method has spawned an entire industry worth billions of dollars. Businesses in industries such as e-commerce and software use method patents to protect their innovations, including business practices, and to gain competitive advantages by safeguarding revenue-generating processes.
The patent landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years. Over half of the U.S. patents granted in 2022 were to foreign companies or inventors, reflecting how innovation transcends borders. For American inventors, this means the window for securing valuable method patents is narrowing as global competition intensifies.
Can You Patent A Method? Understanding Method Patents
A method patent (also called a process patent) specifically protects innovative processes and methods, as opposed to a product patent, which protects a tangible item or device. In U.S. law, processes are explicitly patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 101) as long as they meet the standard criteria (35 U.S.C. § 101 is part of the Patent Act, which governs patent eligibility).
The scope is broader than many inventors realize. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) even has a dedicated Business Methods examination unit for inventions related to e-commerce, finance, and data processing methods. This recognition reflects the economic importance of process innovation across industries, including electrical systems, mechanical devices, software implementations, and medical device applications.
The Evolution of Method Patent Law
The legal foundation for method patents has strengthened significantly over the past decades. A landmark case in 1998, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, confirmed that even software-based business processes can be patentable if they produce a “useful, concrete, and tangible result”. The courts have also emphasized the importance of the machine-or-transformation test, which requires that a process be tied to a particular machine or transform an article into a different state or thing to determine patent eligibility.
However, the landscape tightened with recent court decisions. The Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision in 2014 tightened the rules for abstract ideas, holding that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not patentable. Following Alice, patent examiners’ §101 (subject matter) rejection rate for business-method applications jumped significantly from before Alice to after. Courts interpret the terms ‘process’ and ‘method’ according to their ordinary meaning when determining patent eligibility.
Current Patent Activity
The numbers show robust activity in method patents. The USPTO granted a total of 346,152 patents in fiscal year 2023 (October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023). This competitive environment means inventors must act strategically to secure protection.
Why AI and DIY Approaches Fail for Method Patents
A recent client example illustrates why AI cannot replace experienced patent counsel. The client ran our professional claim chart through a popular AI tool, seeking a second opinion on patent validity. The AI analysis confidently concluded the opposite of our professional assessment – but was completely wrong. The AI had misinterpreted the patent claims because it lacked the legal training to properly construe claim language. Within minutes on a mobile phone, I demonstrated why the AI’s analysis was 180° incorrect, despite its confident presentation.
This highlights a critical truth: patent prosecution, drafting, and litigation involve layers of complexity that extend far beyond the underlying technology. These disciplines require not just technical knowledge, but deep legal expertise in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and commercial strategy that AI simply cannot replicate.
Patent applications succeed or fail based on their disclosures:
- Claims must clearly define the scope of the invention to distinguish process patents from other types of patents.
- The invention must be described in sufficient detail for someone skilled in the art to make and use it.
- All required elements and steps must be disclosed and supported by the written description.
The Three Essential Criteria: What Patent Examiners Really Look For
To secure a method patent, your invention must meet the following criteria: it must clear three hurdles that trip up most applications. There are strict limitations on what can be patented, so it is essential to satisfy all requirements to ensure eligibility. This is where experienced patent prosecution becomes critical – determining these criteria, especially obviousness, requires years of training and proper calibration that DIY inventors simply cannot develop.
Novelty: The Prior Art Minefield
The method must be new. It cannot have been previously disclosed or available to the public before you file your application. Any prior public disclosure – such as a published paper, an online post, a conference presentation, a publication, or an existing patent – can defeat novelty and make your method unpatentable. Even your own disclosures can be fatal if they occur more than a year before filing due to the U.S. one-year grace period rule.
Real-World Example: If you invented a new data encryption algorithm for electrical systems, you must ensure that the method hasn’t already been documented in academic literature or patents. A thorough prior art search is essential to verify novelty.
Non-Obviousness: The Biggest Hurdle
Non-obviousness is often the most challenging hurdle and the #1 challenge in patent prosecution. Your method must represent a meaningful innovation over existing techniques from the perspective of someone skilled in the field. This is where experienced attorneys demonstrate their value – they have the proper calibration developed through years of battling Patent Office bureaucrats.
Patent examiners will compare your claims as claimed in your application to existing references and ask: Would someone skilled in the art find this method obvious to try? Examiners may also use general knowledge in the field to assess whether the method is obvious, not just what is explicitly disclosed in prior art.
Determining your point of novelty – the specific differences between your invention and prior art – requires not just technical knowledge but strategic commercial insight. The point of novelty must align with commercially valuable chokepoints to create a patent worth obtaining. This assessment combines deep technical understanding with business strategy, which is why experienced counsel with both technical backgrounds and commercial insight proves essential.
The Expert’s Approach: Overcoming obviousness rejections requires sophisticated legal doctrines and strategies that must be “baked into the cake” from initial filing. Experienced attorneys know how to highlight non-obvious features or unexpected results. Supporting data or expert declarations can demonstrate that your process isn’t simply a routine extension of existing techniques.
Utility: Usually the Easiest Bar
The method must have a specific and significant use (practical utility). Fortunately, this is typically a low bar – most processes that accomplish something tangible will satisfy it.
Your application should explicitly state how the method can be applied in practice and why that application is useful. For example: “This method of manufacture produces stronger steel at lower cost” or “This medical device algorithm improves signal processing accuracy.”
Methods that meet the utility requirement can be protected under patent law.
The Application Process: Navigating a Complex System
Taking a method from idea to issued patent is a process that can span 2–3 years on average (the average total pendency, from filing to final disposition, excluding RCEs, stood at 26.3 months in 2024).
Figure 1. Average total pendency for U.S. utility patents (filing to final disposition), 2013–2024. Data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that the average pendency in 2024 stood at 26.3 months, illustrating that securing a method patent typically takes over two years. Source: USPTO Patents Data Visualization Center, 2024.
The patent process involves several key steps, from the initial concept to the issuance of the patent, including preparing the application, responding to office actions, and sometimes filing a request for continued examination or other requests during prosecution. Success requires strategic preparation and execution – something that requires experienced legal counsel who understand the intricacies of patent prosecution.
Step 1: Conduct Comprehensive Prior Art Research
Before investing in a patent application, perform thorough research across multiple databases. The goal is to identify any prior art that is similar to your invention. Any single prior disclosure of your method can block you, and the non-obviousness requirement means a combination of prior teachings could do the same.
Professional patent searchers can access specialized databases and identify less obvious references. Relying on Google searches or ChatGPT for patent protection leaves inventors dangerously exposed. The USPTO’s own Patent Public Search tools are also available for inventors, along with international databases like Google Patents and WIPO Patentscope. These databases are of particular interest to applicants in the business methods area, as they provide relevant and valuable resources for prior art searches.
Step 2: Prepare Detailed Documentation
Patent applications succeed or fail based on their disclosures. Your documentation must include:
- Written specification explaining the method’s purpose, step-by-step process, and variations.
- Drawings or flowcharts if they help illustrate the process.
- Claims defining the legal scope of protection you want.
- Supporting evidence showing how your method works and why it’s superior.
Crafting claims is an art that requires years of experience – they must be broad enough to cover variations of your method, but specific enough to be novel and non-obvious. This is where the expertise of experienced patent attorneys becomes invaluable.
Step 3: Choose Your Filing Strategy
You have two main options, and understanding the business benefits of each is crucial:
Provisional Patent Application: This is an optional first step that is less formal and represents a valuable investment in your IP strategy. A provisional patent application won’t be examined or granted as a patent, but it secures a filing date and allows you to label your invention “patent pending” for 12 months.
Think of provisional patent applications like stock options: they provide limited rights for a set time period that expire unless exercised by filing a non-provisional application. However, they create immediate monetizable property rights for licensing, collateral, and balance sheet assets. Most sophisticated companies require inventors to file provisional patent applications before discussing inventions – this protects companies from idea submission lawsuits and demonstrates serious IP development to investors, partners, and customers.
Provisional patent applications are also superior to NDAs, providing concrete legal protection versus vague NDA agreements. Being “patent pending” opens business opportunities unavailable without a filed application.
Non-Provisional Application: This is the full application that the USPTO will examine. Filing fees vary by entity size, and you must submit all required documentation.
Step 4: Navigate the USPTO Examination
Expect to receive an Office Action from the examiner, which is an official letter. In most cases, the first Office Action is a rejection (or at least objections requiring changes). Roughly 88% of applications get at least one rejection initially.
This is where the stark difference in success rates becomes apparent. A study showed 76% of pro se applications were abandoned versus only ~35% of represented ones, and only about 23% of self-filed (“pro se”) applications are granted, versus 65% with professional representation. If the application is successful, the USPTO will grant a patent, which confers exclusive rights to the inventor. Professional guidance more than doubles the chance of success.
Common rejection reasons include:
- Prior art showing a lack of novelty or obviousness.
- Subject matter eligibility issues (especially for software methods).
- Unclear claim language requiring clarification.
The average application sees about 2 Office Actions before resolution. Success requires crafting strong legal arguments and potentially amending claims to overcome examiner concerns – skills that require years of experience to develop properly.
Step 5: Patent Issuance and Maintenance
If successful, you’ll receive a Notice of Allowance. After paying the issue fee, the USPTO will proceed to issue the patent, usually within a few months.
Critical Maintenance Requirements: To keep the patent in force for the full term, maintenance fees must be paid at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from issuance. The patent holder is responsible for paying these maintenance fees to ensure the patent remains active. These fees increase at each stage (for example, a large entity pays approximately $1,600 at 3.5 years, roughly $3,600 at 7.5 years, and approximately $7,400 at 11.5 years).
The Critical Role of Prior Art: What Kills Most Applications
Prior art refers to all publicly available information that might be relevant to an invention’s novelty and non-obviousness. This includes existing patents and patent applications, scientific publications, technical papers, books, websites, products on the market, presentations – essentially, any evidence that something similar to your invention was known before your filing date. It is important to note that printed matter, such as written or printed information, is generally not patentable and is instead protected by copyright law.
Why Prior Art Matters More Than Ever
USPTO examiners have millions of patent documents at their fingertips (the USPTO has issued over 11 million patents in its history, and publishes hundreds of thousands of applications yearly), plus access to scientific literature.
This is why so many first Office Actions come back with prior art rejections; the universe of existing knowledge is vast. Examiners routinely cite articles from IEEE, ACM, Science, Nature, and other technical publications.
Strategic Prior Art Analysis
By conducting a prior art search before filing (or at least before the examiner does it), you can shape your application to navigate around the closest prior art. This proper assessment saves time and money, avoiding over-patenting or under-patenting ideas. Experienced attorneys have the calibration to make these critical determinations – something that cannot be replicated through DIY approaches.
This proactive approach can:
- Prevent filing unpatentable applications.
- Strengthen your application by highlighting differences.
- Anticipate examiner objections.
- Save time and money in prosecution.
Pro Tip: Consider both patent and non-patent literature (NPL) when searching. For methods (especially software methods), relevant prior art may exist in white papers, open-source repositories, or academic journals rather than issued patents.
Common Challenges: What Trips Up Most Applications
The Non-Obviousness Trap
During examination, you may get a rejection saying your method is an obvious combination of prior art references. Overcoming these rejections requires sophisticated legal arguments and years of experience.
Example Scenario: If you patent a new mechanical manufacturing process that uses steps A, B, and C, and prior art showed A+B in one context and A+C in another, an examiner might claim it’s obvious to do A+B+C.
Winning Strategy: You must show either that adding step C yields an unexpected synergy or that there was no reason to combine those steps in the prior art. This often requires experimental data or expert declarations – strategies that experienced attorneys know how to implement effectively.
Subject Matter Eligibility Issues
After the Alice decision, many method patents in software get rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more”. In some USPTO units, the eligibility rejection rate soared to over 80% for business-method-related applications.
Solution Approach: Emphasize concrete technical steps and specific computer interactions rather than high-level concepts. Focus on how your method improves computer functionality or solves technical problems. Experienced attorneys have proprietary techniques to increase Alice eligibility success by 25-50%.
Disclosure and Enablement Challenges
Patent law requires that you disclose your method in full detail, such that a person skilled in the art could carry it out (enablement), and that you disclose the best way you know of practicing the method (best mode).
This creates a fundamental tension: Inventors sometimes are hesitant to spill all the “secret sauce” into the patent document, but that’s the bargain of patents (you disclose to the public in exchange for exclusivity).
When NOT to Pursue a Method Patent
Experienced patent counsel provides strategic assessment that often saves clients from costly mistakes. At Thompson Patent Law, we recommend against proceeding with patent applications approximately 30% of the time for one of two key reasons:
Patentability Issues: When prior art analysis reveals insufficient novelty or non-obviousness to support a strong patent position.
Commercial Misalignment: When the point of novelty doesn’t align with commercially valuable chokepoints, making the patent strategically worthless regardless of grantability.
This upfront honesty protects clients from investing years and significant resources in patents that won’t deliver business value.
Before investing in any method patent, evaluate the potential return using our proprietary 100X ROI Patent Calculator. This tool helps determine whether your point of novelty aligns with commercially valuable chokepoints using three basic numbers any entrepreneur should know.
Substantial Benefits: Why Method Patents Are Worth the Effort
The real success of a method patent isn’t measured by whether you receive the patent – it’s measured by whether that patent generates substantial return on investment. Our standard is 100X ROI or more. A patent only succeeds when it unlocks or protects wealth at least 100 times greater than the investment required to obtain it.
This return depends on three critical factors aligning perfectly:
- The right technology with sufficient differences from prior art
- A point of novelty that represents true innovation
- Commercial chokepoints where those differences create extractable value
Without this alignment, even a successfully granted patent may provide little business value.
Competitive Exclusivity
A patent grants you a 20-year exclusive right (from the filing date) to your method. This monopoly can be decisive in competitive markets. But remember: weak patents create roadmaps for competitors to beat you faster and cheaper, while Litigation Quality Patent® services deter competitors and protect market position.
Real-World Impact: If you develop a patented manufacturing process that produces a component more efficiently or with higher quality, competitors cannot legally copy that process – they’d be forced to find alternatives, which may be costlier or less effective.
Licensing Revenue Potential
Patents are intangible assets that can be monetized through licensing deals involving up-front payments and/or ongoing royalties. The revenue potential can be substantial.
Success Stories:
- Qualcomm’s technology licensing segment generated about $5.3 billion in revenue in 2023, with roughly 68% profit margins.
- Amazon’s “1-Click” checkout method gave Amazon a significant edge in e-commerce for years, generating licensing revenue from companies like Apple.
Investment and Partnership Advantages
Patents signal to others that your innovation is novel and non-obvious (vetted by the USPTO), which can instill confidence. The data supports this impact:
Figure 2: The filing of patent and trademark applications in the seed or early growth stage is associated with a higher likelihood of subsequent VC funding. This effect is significant in the early stage, with a 4.3 times higher likelihood of funding for startups that filed for trademarks, and a 6.4 times higher likelihood of funding for startups that filed for patents. Startups that filed for both trademarks and patents show the highest likelihood of funding in both the seed and the early stage. Source: Patents, trade marks and startup finance – October 2023
Strategic Business Assets
Patents contribute to the valuation of a company, especially in industries like electrical systems, mechanical engineering, software, and medical devices. They are counted as intellectual property assets on the balance sheet. During mergers or acquisitions, a strong patent portfolio can significantly increase the acquisition price.
Real Costs and Limitations: The Full Picture
Financial Investment Required
Professional fees for drafting and prosecuting a single patent application represent a valuable investment in your IP strategy. These fees typically range from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity, but this investment pays dividends by securing strong protection that deters competitors.
Saving money upfront on legal fees often leads to wasting time and getting no patent protection. Quality legal representation saves money long-term by avoiding failed applications and ensuring proper protection from the start.
Over the patent’s lifetime, additional costs include:
- Maintenance fees currently total $14,500 for a large entity over the full term (about half that for small entities).
- Potential enforcement costs if litigation becomes necessary.
- International filing fees are needed if global protection is required.
As mentioned, approximately half of patents expire due to non-payment of maintenance fees, indicating many inventors eventually decide the costs outweigh the benefits.
The Disclosure Trade-off
A patent application must publicly disclose how your method works in detail. Once published (usually 18 months after filing) or issued, anyone can read and learn from your patent.
Historical Example: If Coca-Cola had tried to patent its secret recipe in the 19th century, the recipe would have been published, and after 20 years, anyone could make “Coke.” Instead, Coca-Cola chose trade secret protection and has kept the formula confidential for over a century.
Limited Duration and Enforcement Challenges
Patents expire after 20 years from filing for utility patents. After expiration, the method becomes public domain; anyone can use it freely. Additionally:
- Enforcing patents is your responsibility. The government doesn’t police infringement – you do.
- Patent lawsuits can easily cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in legal fees.
- Competitors might find ways to design around your patented method, achieving similar results with a different process.
The Value of Professional Legal Support
The statistics on professional representation demonstrate why experienced legal counsel is essential. Consulting a lawyer is highly recommended when pursuing a method patent, as their expertise can significantly improve your chances of success. DIY inventors and novice attorneys lack the proper calibration developed through years of experience, leading to dramatically lower success rates.
What Patent Attorneys Provide
Strategic Evaluation: A patent attorney can help you determine at the outset whether your method is likely patentable and worth patenting. They can conduct or guide a prior art search and, based on experience, predict obstacles.
Superior Application Drafting: Patent attorneys are trained to draft claims and descriptions that meet legal requirements and maximize coverage. They know the phrasing that examiners look for and the pitfalls to avoid.
Examination Advocacy: Once the application is filed and examination begins, a patent attorney’s role becomes one of advocate and negotiator. They will analyze any rejections or objections raised by the examiner, craft legal arguments to counter them, and amend claims if necessary.
Success Rate Impact
The USPTO itself recommends experienced legal counsel for patent prosecution. Professional guidance doesn’t just improve success rates – it’s often the difference between getting valuable protection and wasting time and money on failed applications.
Successful Method Patent Case Studies
Amazon’s 1-Click Revolution
Amazon’s “1-Click” purchasing method, U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411, granted in 1999, covered a method of allowing online shoppers to complete a purchase with a single click. This innovation streamlined the point of sale process in online shopping by enabling customers to finalize transactions instantly at the digital point of sale.
Business Impact: Amazon aggressively enforced the patent, even suing Barnes & Noble in 1999 for using a similar feature. Amazon also licensed the method to Apple in 2000 for use on the Apple Online Store and iTunes. The patent helped Amazon lock in repeat buyers and contributed to early e-commerce dominance until it expired in 2017.
Apple’s Multi-Touch Interface
Apple obtained numerous patents on touch-screen methods of interpreting finger inputs, including U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, which covers distinguishing one-finger scroll gestures from multi-finger pinch gestures.
Market Impact: This method patent was central in Apple’s litigation against Samsung in the early 2010s. In a high-profile 2012 trial, a jury found that many Samsung phones infringed on Apple’s multi-touch method patent. The patent gave Apple leverage during the crucial early years of smartphones.
3D Printing Breakthrough
Charles W. Hull filed a patent in 1984 and was granted U.S. Patent No. 4,575,330 in 1986 for a method of making three-dimensional objects by curing layers of photopolymer with a UV laser. This patent kick-started the 3D printing industry.
Industrial Impact: Hull’s method patent gave his company, 3D Systems, a strong position as the pioneer in 3D printers. During its 17-year term, this method patent allowed 3D Systems to dominate the SLA market and license the technology globally.
Strategic Alternatives to Method Patents
Trade Secrets: The Indefinite Protection Option
A trade secret is information that has economic value because it is not generally known and is subject to reasonable efforts to keep it secret. Famous examples include the Coca-Cola formula and KFC’s blend of herbs and spices.
Key Advantages:
- Protection can last indefinitely as long as the secret is maintained. There’s no expiration date.
- No public disclosure required.
- Generally less expensive than patents.
Critical Limitations:
- If someone independently discovers the method or reverse-engineers it, you have no protection.
- If someone else patents the method after independently inventing it, they could exclude you from using your own method.
Choosing Between Patents and Trade Secrets
The choice often hinges on several factors:
Reverse-Engineering Potential: If someone can figure out your method by examining your product or process, then the trade secret won’t help for long – once it’s out, it’s out. In such cases, a patent might be better to secure rights despite disclosure.
Method Lifespan: If the method’s utility is short (a few years), patents might not be worth it; if it’s very long (decades), a patent might expire too soon, favoring trade secrets.
Infringement Detectability: If you patent a method, could you tell if someone is infringing? If it’s a method used internally by a competitor, you might never know. Trade secrets keep you ahead in that scenario.
Your Next Steps to Method Patent Success
Method patents can generate extraordinary returns – but only when the point of novelty aligns with commercially valuable chokepoints and the patent meets Litigation Quality Patent® standards that survive validity challenges.
The bottom line: Patent quality determines everything. You may have the right idea at the right time for the right market with the ability to execute – but without a Litigation Quality Patent® engineered to withstand scrutiny, competitors will use your innovations as roadmaps to beat you in the marketplace.
Business Consequences of Poor Decisions: Weak patents don’t just fail to protect – they actively help competitors by providing detailed roadmaps of your innovations. Meanwhile, inadequate legal counsel leads to years of wasted effort and significant investment in patents that provide no competitive advantage or return on investment.
Critical Timing Pressure: In our first-to-file system, competitors may be working on similar methods. Hesitation gives competitors the upper hand while you struggle with inadequate protection strategies.
Immediate Action Items:
- Schedule a Free Patent Needs Assessment to evaluate whether your method’s point of novelty aligns with commercially valuable chokepoints and develop a strategic protection plan with experienced counsel who has helped Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft.
- Calculate your 100X ROI potential using our proprietary calculator to determine if patent investment makes business sense
- Assess your point of novelty through comprehensive prior art analysis using professional techniques that identify true commercial differentiation
- Evaluate competitive threats to understand timing urgency and file before competitors secure similar protection
- Develop Litigation Quality Patent® strategy that survives validity challenges and creates sustainable competitive advantages
Remember: 30% of the time, experienced counsel recommends against proceeding with patent applications due to patentability or commercial issues. This strategic assessment protects you from years of wasted effort and significant investment in patents that won’t deliver business value.
Forward-Looking Investment: Quality method patents that align technical innovation with commercial chokepoints become powerful business assets generating 100X returns or more. Proper preparation with experienced patent counsel who understand both technical and commercial requirements creates patents that withstand litigation and generate substantial licensing revenue.
Don’t let competitors use your innovations as roadmaps to dominate markets you should control. The difference between innovation quality and patent quality lies in experienced legal counsel who engineer Litigation Quality Patent® services that protect your competitive position and generate extraordinary returns on investment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a method patent?
A method patent safeguards innovative processes and techniques, allowing the inventor exclusive rights to their use and preventing unauthorized use by others. This protection encourages innovation by ensuring that inventors can benefit from their creations.
What are the main criteria for patenting a method?
The primary criteria for patenting a method are novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. The method must demonstrate these characteristics to qualify for patent protection. Non-obviousness is often the most challenging criterion and requires experienced evaluation to assess correctly.
How can prior art impact my patent application?
Prior art significantly impacts your patent application by determining its novelty and non-obviousness. A thorough prior art search can reveal potential conflicts and enhance your application by emphasizing its unique features. Professional prior art analysis is essential for developing winning strategies.
What are some common challenges in patenting methods?
Patenting methods often involve challenges such as demonstrating non-obviousness, satisfying disclosure requirements, and confirming the novelty of the method. These challenges require sophisticated legal arguments and experienced prosecution strategies that DIY inventors and novice attorneys cannot effectively address.
Are there alternatives to method patents?
Yes, trade secrets serve as an effective alternative to method patents, allowing for the protection of confidential information without public disclosure, provided that confidentiality is upheld. This can result in indefinite protection. However, the choice between patents and trade secrets depends on factors like reverse-engineering potential and competitive landscape.
