Invention Disclosure Form
A comprehensive invention disclosure form for patent intake, conception, disclosure history, inventorship, and the technical description. Free template.
Written for patent practitioners as a work-aid. Not a substitute for professional judgment.
Attorney work-aid sequence
This is the comprehensive version of an invention disclosure, the intake document a patent attorney works from. It leads with the facts that drive filing strategy: conception date, any prior or planned public disclosure, outside collaboration and funding, and inventorship, followed by the technical description and prior-art context.
It is a structured intake aid, not legal advice, and the legal judgments it feeds (patentability, inventorship, filing strategy, deadlines) remain with a licensed patent practitioner. For a lighter, plain-language version, see the Idea Disclosure template.
The Template
Public Disclosure and External Obligations
These facts drive filing strategy and deadlines. Capture them first.
Approximate Conception Date
When was the invention first conceived? Approximate is fine.
Prior Disclosure, Release, Sale, Offer, or Outside Use?
Has the invention (or a product embodying it) been published, presented, released, demoed, sold, offered for sale, or used outside the org? No / Yes / Unsure.
Prior Disclosure / Activity Events
For each: what kind (paper, talk, blog, GitHub release, product launch, demo/beta, vendor discussion, sale/offer, trade show, investor materials, commercial use, other), the date, audience, who disclosed, what was disclosed, whether the invention itself was disclosed, confidentiality status (public / written NDA / expected but no NDA / unknown / internal), any commercial activity, and a link or citation.
Planned Disclosure, Release, Sale, or Offer
Any upcoming public release, publication, demo, sale, or offer, kind and approximate date. Bears on filing deadlines.
Inventorship
Possible Contributors
List everyone who contributed to any potentially claimable technical concept, a feature, architecture, algorithm, data structure, workflow, or alternative implementation, with name, role, organization, and the specific contribution. Describe the contribution; don't decide whether the person is legally an inventor. Joint inventors need not contribute equally or to every claim; counsel evaluates inventorship against the eventual claims.
Outside Collaboration
Any outside collaborators, joint development, university involvement, or third parties who contributed or may have rights. Yes/No, and details.
Funding
Any government funding, grants, or contracts (Bayh-Dole / march-in implications), or other funding with IP terms.
Ownership & Assignment
For each inventor: an employment or consulting agreement with an obligation to assign? Any prior-employer claim, contractor or joint-development IP terms, or background IP supplied by another party? Note anything that bears on who owns the invention.
Inventor Location When Invented
Were any inventors located outside the US when the invention was made? Some countries impose a first-filing or foreign-filing-license requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 184). Flag it for counsel.
AI-Assisted Contribution
Were AI tools used in conceiving or implementing the invention? Which tools, for which parts, and what did the human contributors add? Inventorship requires human contribution to conception, see AI and patent inventorship.
Invention Description
Invention Title
A descriptive title for the invention (distinct from the document title).
Problem Statement
The technical problem, limitation, or failure mode the invention addresses.
How It Works
The technical solution in enabling detail: components, data, steps, models, parameters, and how they interact. Enough that a person skilled in the art could build it.
Technical Benefit
The technical improvement over prior approaches, and, where possible, its size, with a baseline.
Alternatives / Embodiments
Alternative implementations, configurations, or extensions that should be within scope.
Prior Art and Strategic Context
Known Related Work
Known products, patents, papers, or systems that are related, and how the invention differs. This is factual context; a formal search is counsel's step. Material references known to the applicant feed the Information Disclosure Statement under the duty of disclosure (37 CFR 1.56).
Strategic Importance / Notes
Commercial importance, competitive context, product roadmap ties, or anything else counsel should weigh.
Supporting Materials
Diagrams, figures, benchmark data, code references, specs, or design docs to attach.
Why this form leads with dates
The disclosure events sit at the top because they drive filing strategy under the §102 bar. The US grace period is narrower under the America Invents Act (AIA) than practitioners sometimes assume, its exceptions are largely untested, so the standing advice is to file before public or sales activity begins. And a sale can count even when it is confidential: in Helsinn v. Teva (2019), the Supreme Court held that a commercial sale to a third party bound to keep the invention secret still triggered the on-sale bar.
Two more facts belong up front. If any inventor was outside the US when the invention was made, a foreign-filing license (§184) may be required before filing abroad. And material references known to the applicant feed the Information Disclosure Statement under the duty of disclosure (37 CFR 1.56), the Known Related Work field is where they start.
Because public release history drives the §102 analysis, see also Building in Public and Patent Rights on how commits, launch posts, and open-source releases can start the clock before anyone files.
Educational context on the governing framework, not legal advice, and not a prediction for any specific matter.
Use it in the platform (coming soon)
Our platform will let you fill this in interactively from a linked disclosure and export a finished document. Until it launches, use the template above.
See the Concept Scanner.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should an invention disclosure form include for software?
Beyond the standard sections (inventors, dates, problem, solution, prior art), a software disclosure should capture the repository and version, the modules and interfaces, the algorithm and data structures, third-party and open-source dependencies with licenses, any external contributors, and public-release history. This form's technical and prior-art sections cover them; the linked Idea Disclosure template gathers them from the inventor.
What is the AIA grace period?
Under the America Invents Act, an inventor's own disclosure (or one derived from them) within one year before filing may not count as prior art against them in the US. It is narrower than the pre-AIA grace period, its statutory exceptions are largely untested, and most other countries provide no equivalent, so it is not a substitute for filing promptly. Confirm current treatment with counsel.
Does a confidential sale count as prior art?
It can. In Helsinn v. Teva (2019), the Supreme Court held that a commercial sale to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can still trigger the on-sale bar under §102. That is why this form asks about sales and offers, not just publications.
Who counts as an inventor?
An inventor is someone who contributed to the conception of the claimed invention, the definite, permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Funding, management, and reduction to practice alone do not make someone an inventor. Because inventorship is claim-dependent and legally determined, the form captures each person's specific contribution for counsel to assess.
Scope. This intake record does not establish inventorship, ownership, patentability, or filing strategy. Primarily US law and USPTO practice; other jurisdictions differ.
Disclaimer. This worksheet is a practitioner work-aid for capturing an attorney's own analysis. Obviously Not is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice; this worksheet and any output are for informational and documentation purposes only, are not legal, patent, patentability, eligibility, non-obviousness, claim-scope, validity, or freedom-to-operate advice, and do not create an attorney-client relationship. All legal judgment, including whether and how to file or argue, remains with a licensed patent practitioner exercising independent professional judgment. Nothing here predicts an outcome at the USPTO or any court.