Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Our patent FR2553560 was disparaged by the subsequent patent US5069827. They rejected the use of the best solvent HNO3 of our invention and claimed to use H2SO4 instead of HNO3 in nuclear fuel reprocessing. We believe they are nuclear fuel reprocessing professionals. So that, the inventors of US5069827 must intentionally have rejected our invention, despite it being the best.
Is their patent invalid because of this?
It's not illegal to say your invention is useless, actually that's quite normal because one wants to argue how their invention is inventive, so naturally the prior art must have drawbacks. It really doesn't matter if that's true-ish or not. The patent attorney writing that probably doesn't even know if your invention or theirs is better. So just ignore that.
If their patent is granted and their way of using H2SO4 works and doesn't infringe your patent, than they can use that. If it's worse than yours, they'll notice on a business level, but for patents, it doesn't matter.
After all, them not using your invention is exactly what your patent is supposed to accomplish. If they find an alternative/better way, well, that's how it goes.
You can say whatever you want about other patents. It might not be sensible for various reasons, but no one will stop you.
However, a patent must also set out the best mode of performing the invention. If it fails to do so, the patent is invalid.
However, best mode is pretty broad. It doesn't just mean highest performing. A cheapest, but lower performing option can be the best mode if you are looking for economy. A safer, but lower performing option can be the best mode if you are looking for safety. An inferior alternative can be the best mode, if you are looking for alternatives. Basically anything can be the best mode under the right lens.
In this case, US5069827 discusses FR2553560, and notes certain problems in it. These problems seem reasonable at first blush. US5069827 also presents a solution that ostensibly doesn't have those problems. So it seems they have disclosed the best mode of performing their invention. This is the case even if FR2553560 discloses a better invention (for some meaning of better).
