Already shared your invention? Find out what you can still protect.

Why this matters

The first question is what counts as a public disclosure?. Do not claim disclosure is harmless or a generic grace period applies. The decision is easier to explain when the relevant documents, countries and dates are kept separate.

What a tailored review can clarify

A preparatory review can organise a prior disclosure timeline and a country exception evidence table, identify the records that change the answer, and flag where authorised local patent advice is required. This is a proposed review pathway; an opinion, filing or representation is not promised without confirming capability and engagement scope.

Example: how this issue can arise

Illustrative scenario, not a reported client case: A company shows a device enclosure at a trade show, then posts a technical teardown video several weeks later. Those may be two different disclosures. Neither should be described as harmless without identifying what each revealed. The example illustrates a decision to investigate, not an actual client result or a prediction of an office decision.

Related featured video and insights

The existing featured video introduces patent-filing concepts. For this subject, focus on which filing countries could still be possible? rather than assuming a general video addresses the relevant office’s rules.

Research guide: What counts as a public disclosure?

Direct answer: Showing an invention to somebody can count as disclosure, but the answer depends on what was revealed, to whom, and whether confidentiality applied. Some countries provide narrowly framed exceptions; others may not. Do not assume the same rescue rule exists everywhere. (Official guidance)

What counts as a public disclosure?

A disclosure review begins with what was actually made available, not simply with the date on which someone first mentioned an idea. A prototype visible at a trade show may disclose different technical features from a presentation that describes how the prototype works. A public web page, recorded demonstration, manuscript, repository, proposal or product specification can also expose different portions of the invention. Establish the audience, access restrictions, exact technical information and earliest public availability before drawing conclusions about novelty. (Official source)

What to check first: Public website, catalogue or video. This must be assessed using the actual record; a general explanation cannot establish what was submitted, disclosed or accepted in a particular case.

Which filing countries could still be possible?

Patent laws are territorial. An event that may fall within a statutory exception in one country may still become damaging earlier disclosure in another. For a European application, the circumstances in EPC Article 55 are narrowly defined and should not be represented as an ordinary general grace period. Where disclosure was involuntary, proof of how the information escaped and who made it available may matter. No single worldwide recovery rule should be assumed from a US example. (Official source)

Where the answer can change: Private conversation with documented restrictions. Compare the relevant requirement and its source with the office actually involved. A national practice should not be assumed merely because an international filing route is available.

How to document what people actually saw

A useful disclosure chronology lists each event, material shown, recipients, publication or access date, and supporting evidence such as screenshots, archived webpages, versions of slides and correspondence. It then separates features already disclosed from technical improvements first developed later. This matters because filing new subject matter is a different question from trying to protect subject matter already made public. The answer should be tested against each contemplated filing jurisdiction and the actual scope of the proposed claims. (Official source)

Practical boundary: Trade-show demonstration or research abstract. Do not claim disclosure is harmless or a generic grace period applies.

Your decision table: Prior disclosure timeline

The decision table is not an official application form. Use it to record the evidence for prior disclosure timeline, then confirm any application-specific instruction with the relevant patent office or authorised professional.

Use a country exception evidence table as an independent check, especially where the facts span several countries, document versions or filing stages. Enter the office and evidence for every finding rather than assuming the same result everywhere.

Documents and facts worth collecting

Keep the contemporaneous records associated with disclosure date and audience. Where dates or documents conflict, mark the discrepancy instead of selecting the more favourable version. Official receipts and register entries should be distinguished from notes or saved drafts.

A practical sequence before taking action

1. Identify the exact problem. Begin with disclosure already occurred and name the relevant patent application, technology or disclosure event.
2. Check the first critical distinction. Address what counts as a public disclosure with the originals, not with an informal summary.
3. Verify the controlling authority. Work through which filing countries could still be possible using the current office rule or treaty provision and note where territorial limits apply.
4. Document the alternative or limit. Examine how to document what people actually saw and record what may be unavailable, disputed or outside the chosen procedure.
5. Confirm the appropriate next action. Distinguish an informational review from an instruction to a licensed patent representative; retain written confirmations for any actual filing or procedural step.

The process cannot change the contents of documents that have already been filed. Do not claim disclosure is harmless or a generic grace period applies. Before relying on any remedy, have the relevant office rule and current application record checked.

Frequent misunderstandings to avoid

• Assuming the subject name is the rule: A public webpage and a private discussion under an enforceable confidentiality agreement can have different consequences.
• Treating one office's action as universal: Separate the date an idea was conceived from the date enabling technical details became available to others.
• Assuming a checklist is a professional opinion: A comparison table assists preparation but does not replace competent review, prescribed forms or official acceptance.

Questions to resolve before requesting help

What is the first question to resolve? Identify whether prior disclosure imperils novelty by target country. Check the underlying records and applicable office requirement before deciding which route is available.

What should not be assumed? A public webpage and a private discussion under an enforceable confidentiality agreement can have different consequences. Separate the date an idea was conceived from the date enabling technical details became available to others.

What documents are useful for an initial enquiry? Start with a short non-confidential chronology and these facts: disclosure date and audience; countries contemplated; nda/website/trade-show records. Do not send full unpublished inventions or account passwords through an ordinary initial email.

Official references for this question

• Primary official source — check the exact text, effective version and territorial application.

For this question, confirm the version and scope of the source before acting on identify whether prior disclosure imperils novelty by target country. A general official guide may not contain every national or regional exception.

Related filing guidance

For broader procedural background, see the relevant existing site hub. That overview explains the broader filing route; this guide concentrates on the narrower decision above.

Who this consultation is—and is not—for

This material is designed for inventors, founders, research teams and patent owners who need to organize a decision involving disclosure already occurred. It is not a substitute for substantive legal advice about disputed rights, litigation, patentability or a filing that requires a locally authorised professional. Do not claim disclosure is harmless or a generic grace period applies.

Publisher and professional limitations

Dr. Rahul Dev is identified in the project sources as the platform’s expert authority; Hashchain Consulting Group USA is the consulting structure. Neither identification by itself establishes rights of audience or authority to file before a particular patent office.

Take the next step

For an initial, non-confidential enquiry, state the country or office involved, the event or application stage, and the most relevant dates. Disclosure date and audience is an especially useful starting point for this subject. Do not email unpublished technical details, account credentials or other sensitive invention material unless an appropriate secure process and professional arrangement have been confirmed.

General patent-information content only. Reading this page or making contact does not create an attorney–client relationship or guarantee a filing, patent grant, particular deadline outcome or enforceable protection. Confirm current rules with the competent office and appropriate professionals.