{"id":1436,"date":"2018-08-28T09:48:00","date_gmt":"2018-08-28T09:48:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dexpatent.com\/insights\/?p=1436"},"modified":"2025-10-11T05:56:05","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T05:56:05","slug":"video-found-as-prior-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dexpatent.com\/insights\/2018\/08\/28\/video-found-as-prior-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Video as a Prior Art"},"content":{"rendered":"

Video\u00a0is being considered as a source of prior art for many inventions.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

\"Video<\/p>\n

A patent infringement case: Diomed, INC. Vs<\/em> AngioDynamics, INC. in 2006 alleging that,<\/p>\n

The plaintiff, Diomed, INC. filed an infringing complaint on AngioDynamics, INC. and VSI, INC. for their patent U.S. Patent No. 6,398,777. But unfortunately both the defendants argued that the \u2018777 patent was invalid because it was anticipated by means of the following prior art references,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
    \n
  1. An article and video presentation by Dr. Brunello Puglisi<\/li>\n
  2. An article by Dr. Gerald O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”)<\/li>\n
  3. Inventions by Brian Farley and others which were patented under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,638,273 and 6,033,398<\/li>\n
  4. An article and video presentation by A. Mazza<\/li>\n
  5. An article by Ken Biegeleisen<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Although the defendants submitted an evidence to invalidate the plaintiff\u2019s \u2018777 patent, Diomed, INC. proved that the patent is valid.<\/p>\n

    Considering the above case, it is evident that the oral description or video stream can be used as prior art.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Requirements of Patentability<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/h4>\n

    Patentability requirements of an invention are novelty<\/strong><\/a>, useful<\/strong> and non-obvious<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    Prior use of the invention in a public domain will make a patent application obvious as well spoil the novelty of the patent application<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    So, in order to make sure that an invention is indeed novel and patentable, a thorough prior art search is a must. Any document disclosed to the public is a prior art \u2013 it need not be necessarily a patent document; it can be any piece of write-up published on internet, or, an article in a newspaper, a video published online etc.<\/p>\n

    According to MPEP 901.06, \u2018All printed publications may be used as references, the date to be cited being the publication date\u2019. Hence, a video can also be qualified as a printed publication considering its uploaded date as publication date.<\/p>\n

    To be a prior art,<\/p>\n