What to Do If You’ve Disclosed Your Invention Before Filing a Patent Application

You’ve shared your invention. Maybe in a pitch. A demo. A conference. Online.

You haven’t filed a patent application.

Do not assume the opportunity is lost.

Speak to your patent attorney immediately. Timing matters. Strategy matters more.

In many cases, there is still a path forward.

First: Assess What Was Actually Disclosed

What you revealed may not be the invention that would ultimately be defined in your patent claims.

Patents are granted on what is claimed, not on broad concepts or commercial descriptions. If your disclosure did not clearly and completely teach the claimed invention, you may still be able to file validly.

This is a technical assessment. It requires careful analysis of what was said, shown, or published and how that aligns with the proposed claims.

We focus on the detail. That is where protection lives.

Second: Was the Disclosure Truly Public?

Not every disclosure destroys patent rights.

If the information was shared under confidentiality, whether through a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or an implied obligation of confidence, it may not count as public disclosure.

Similarly, if the disclosure occurred through an abuse of confidence, such as a breach by a third party, many jurisdictions provide safeguards.

Context matters. Evidence matters. Documentation matters.

We help you assess all three.

Grace Periods: A Strategic Safety Net

Some countries recognise that innovators move fast. They allow a limited window to file a patent application after a self-disclosure. This is known as a grace period.

A grace period allows you to secure patent protection even after making your invention public, provided you act within a defined timeframe.

The rules vary:

· Some countries allow 6 months from the date of disclosure.

· Others allow 12 months.

· Requirements differ. Formal declarations may be needed.

· The scope of protection may be affected if handled incorrectly.

Importantly, the UK and the European Patent Office do not provide a general grace period for self-disclosures. In contrast, several commercially significant markets do.

This creates both risk and opportunity.

If global protection is part of your growth strategy, we coordinate jurisdiction-specific analysis to preserve as much protection as possible. Quietly. Efficiently. Precisely.

What You Should Do Now

1. Stop further disclosure immediately.

2. Document exactly what was disclosed, when, and to whom.

3. Preserve emails, slides, recordings, and agreements.

4. Contact your patent attorney without delay.

The sooner we assess the situation, the more options we can protect.

Innovation moves quickly. So do we.

An early disclosure is not the end of the road. It is a technical problem that requires strategic containment.

Our role is simple: protect your position, limit exposure, and secure the strongest possible patent rights, behind the scenes, where it counts.

Countries which allow a 6-month grace period

· Albania

· Andorra

· Kazakhstan

· Russia

· Tajikistan

· Uzbekistan

· Eurasian Patent Organisation

Countries which allow a 12-month grace period

· Algeria

· Argentina

· Armenia

· Australia

· Azerbaijan

· Bahrain

· Barbados

· Belarus

· Belize

· Bhutan

· Bolivia

· Brazil

· Canada

· Colombia

· Costa Rica

· Dominica

· Dominican Republic

· Ecuador

· El Salvador

· Estonia

· Ethiopia

· Georgia

· Ghana

· Guatemala

· Honduras

· Japan

· Jordan

· Kenya

· Kyrgyz Republic

· Latvia

· Malaysia

· Malta

· Mauritius

· Mexico

· Morocco

· Mozambique

· Nicaragua

· Oman

· Papa New guinea

· Paraguay

· Peru

· Philippines

· Republic of Korea

· Sri Lanka

· Taiwan

· Thailand

· Trinidad and Tobago

· Turkiye

· Uganda

· Ukraine

· USA

· Uruguay

· Zambia

Important Exceptions: Unlawful Disclosure and Exhibitions

While the UK and the European Patent Office do not provide a general grace period for voluntary self-disclosures, the position is more nuanced.

Both the UK and the European Patent Office, along with many other jurisdictions, recognise limited exceptions.

You may still be able to file validly where:

· The disclosure resulted from an unlawful act, such as a breach of confidence or breach of agreement; or

· The invention was displayed at an officially recognised international exhibition.

These provisions are narrow. They are evidence driven. And they are strictly applied.

In practice, very few exhibitions qualify as “officially recognised” under the relevant international framework. Many trade shows and industry events do not meet the threshold, no matter how prominent they appear commercially.

Assumptions are risky. Verification is essential.

How This Fits with Broader Grace Period Regimes

Most countries that offer a grace period for self-disclosure also include similar protections for:

· Disclosures made unlawfully; and

· Displays at qualifying exhibitions.

However, the scope, evidential requirements, and filing deadlines differ by jurisdiction. Some require formal statements at the time of filing. Others impose strict time limits measured from the first disclosure.

The detail determines the outcome.

What This Means for You

If your disclosure arose from a breach of agreement, misuse of confidential information, or an exhibition display, you may still have options, even in jurisdictions that do not recognise voluntary grace periods.

But these exceptions are technical. They require:

· Clear evidence of the circumstances of disclosure

· Precise timing analysis

· Jurisdiction-specific filing strategy

We assess exposure quickly. We preserve what can be preserved. And we position your application to withstand scrutiny.

When disclosure happens, the response must be controlled, strategic, and immediate.

That is where we operate.

Countries which allow a 6-month period to file after unlawful disclosure and/or display at an exhibition

· African Intellectual Property Organization

· African Intellectual Property Organization

· China

· Egypt (for exhibition only)

· EPO (including the contracting states individually such as UK).

· Hong Kong

· Indonesia (for exhibition or research only)

· Israel (exhibition only)

· Madagascar

· Nigeria (exhibition only)

· Saudi Arabia

· Syrian Arab Republic

· Tunisia (breach only)

· Zimbabwe (breach only)

Countries which allow a 12-month period to file after unlawful disclosure or exhibition

· Cote d’Ivoire

· India

· New Zealand

· Pakistan (exhibition only)

· Panama (breach only)

· Singapore

· Patent Office of the Cooperation council for the Arab States of the Gulf

No Fixed Time Limit in Some Jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions take a broader approach.

Countries such as Israel and South Africa do not impose a specific deadline for filing where the disclosure resulted from an unlawful act or breach of agreement. Instead, the law provides that such a disclosure will not be taken into account if it occurred at any time before the filing date.

That is a meaningful distinction.

In these jurisdictions, the focus is not on racing a six- or twelve-month clock. The focus is on proving the disclosure was unlawful or in breach of confidence.

Evidence remains critical. The burden does not disappear. But the absence of a fixed statutory window can materially improve your position.

We analyse this jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Your filing strategy should reflect where you do business, not just where the rules are most forgiving.

Grace Periods – Utility Models

When patent protection is compromised or uncertain, another option may be available: a utility model.

A utility model is an intellectual property right similar to a patent. It includes:

· A written technical specification

· Defined claims that set the scope of protection

The core difference is duration and, in some cases, examination procedure.

Utility models typically offer a shorter term of protection than patents, commonly up to 10 years, but they can still provide commercially valuable exclusivity. In some jurisdictions, the term “utility patent” is used to describe a similar right.

For the right technology, in the right market, a utility model can be a decisive commercial tool.

Utility Models and Grace Periods

In several countries, it is possible to file a utility model application after a disclosure under a grace period regime.

Often:

· The grace period mirrors the patent grace period (for example, 6 or 12 months).

· Protections for unlawful disclosure or exhibition display also apply.

· Formal requirements must be satisfied at filing.

In some jurisdictions, utility models offer a more flexible or pragmatic route to protection following disclosure.

This is not a fallback. It is a strategic alternative.

Your Position, Recovered

If disclosure has occurred, the solution is rarely one-dimensional.

We assess:

· Whether patent protection remains viable

· Whether unlawful disclosure provisions apply

· Whether exhibition exceptions can be relied upon

· Whether a utility model offers stronger or faster protection

· Which jurisdictions align with your commercial priorities

Our objective is simple: preserve enforceable rights where they matter most.

Disclosure creates exposure. Strategy restores control.

Countries which allow a grace period for Utility Models

· Cambodia (12 month)

· Czech Republic (6 month)

· Germany (6 month)

· Romania (6 month)

· Austria (6 month)

· Hungary (6 month)

· Bulgaria (6 month)

· Slovak Republic (6 month)

Other Strategic Avenues

There may be additional options.

Some jurisdictions contain legislative nuances, practical “quirks” in how their IP laws operate. In the right circumstances, these can be used to preserve protection despite earlier disclosure.

But precision is essential.

The country lists referenced above are not exhaustive. Laws evolve. Deadlines shift. Interpretation changes through case law and practice.

Grace periods are not harmonised. Each jurisdiction applies its own rules. Some require:

· Formal declarations at filing

· Evidence of the circumstances of disclosure

· Strict compliance with procedural steps

· Specific wording in the application

Missing a technical requirement can undermine an otherwise valid strategy.

This is not an area for assumptions. It is an area for coordinated, jurisdiction-specific action.

Conclusions

If you have publicly disclosed your invention before filing a patent application, the position is exposed, but it is not automatically lost.

There may be:

· Claim-based arguments that preserve novelty

· Confidentiality or unlawful disclosure exceptions

· Exhibition protections

· Grace period opportunities

· Utility model alternatives

· Jurisdiction-specific strategic routes

What matters most is speed and accuracy.

Speak to your patent attorney as soon as you identify the issue. Early intervention allows us to:

· Contain further risk

· Secure evidence

· Prioritise key markets

· File within critical windows

· Structure claims to maximise defensibility

When disclosure happens, the response must be controlled and deliberate.

We work behind the scenes to stabilise your position, protect commercial leverage, and secure the strongest enforceable rights available.

 

Ian Lambert European and UK Chartered Patent Attorney (EPA, CPA) | Director

Ashleigh Kirs European Patent Attorney (EPA)