PriorMark
IP Protection
Important limitations, legal context, and technical transparency about how PriorMark works and what it does — and does not — provide.
PriorMark is a timestamping and prior art documentation service. When you submit an idea, we generate a cryptographic fingerprint (SHA-3/512 hash) of your content and record it — along with the exact timestamp — on the Hedera public ledger. This creates a tamper-proof record that you possessed a specific document at a specific moment in time.
This record is evidence of prior conception. It can support your position in inventorship disputes, trade secret claims, and priority contests. It is not a substitute for formal legal protection.
A public immutable ledger record — combined with a full enabling disclosure — creates globally recognized prior art that can invalidate a later-filed patent for lack of novelty, provided the disclosure predates the patent's priority date and is publicly accessible. The following statutes and court rulings establish the legal basis across the US, Europe, and China.
United States (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)): A public disclosure qualifies as prior art under the “otherwise available to the public” standard. A PriorMark record with a publicly accessible disclosure can be used in Inter Partes Review (IPR), reexamination, or litigation to challenge the novelty of a later-filed patent.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) — Exact statutory text
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
View full statute — US House Office of Law Revision Counsel →United States (35 U.S.C. § 273) — Prior commercial use defense: Separate from § 102, this statute provides a personal defense against patent infringement for anyone who commercially used the invention in good faith at least one year before the patent's effective filing date — provided the use was independently created. Unlike § 102 (which can invalidate the patent for everyone), the § 273 defense is personal and non-transferable: it allows you to continue your existing commercial use even if the patent stands. The statute requires proof by “clear and convincing evidence” — a high bar. A PriorMark timestamp predating the one-year window creates a documented, independently verifiable record that directly supports meeting this burden.
35 U.S.C. § 273 — Exact statutory text
(a) In General.— A person shall be entitled to a defense under section 282(b) with respect to subject matter consisting of a process, or consisting of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process, that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being asserted against the person if—
(1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used the subject matter in the United States, either in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm's length sale or other arm's length commercial transfer of a useful end result of such commercial use; and
(2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of either— (A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (B) the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for the exception from prior art under section 102(b).
(b) Burden of Proof.— A person asserting a defense under this section shall have the burden of establishing the defense by clear and convincing evidence.
View full statute — US House Office of Law Revision Counsel →France — AZ Factory (Richemont) v. Valeria Moda: AZ Factory anchored cryptographic fingerprints of designer Alber Elbaz's original “Love from Alber” and “Hearts from Alber” sketches to a public blockchain in May and September 2021. When Valeria Moda began selling garments replicating those prints, AZ Factory produced the blockchain timestamps as proof of prior ownership. The Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille sided with AZ Factory — the first European court to explicitly recognize blockchain timestamping as valid IP evidence. Outcome: €11,900 in damages, injunction, mandatory destruction of infringing garments, and publication of the judgment in three industry journals.
Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille · 20 March 2025 · RG 23/00046 — Key holding (translated)
“[The court] recognized for the first time that a timestamp recorded on a blockchain could constitute prima facie evidence of the prior existence of a work.”
The court accorded full probative weight to the blockchain timestamp reports dated 5 May 2021 and 15 September 2021, corroborated by a bailiff's verification report dated 19 October 2022, deeming them “legitimate and compelling” evidence of copyright ownership and anteriority.
Translation via Mark & Law and The Fashion Law. Original judgment in French — full text available through Legifrance.
Full case report — The Fashion Law →China — Hangzhou Huatai Media v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology: Huatai Media brought an infringement claim after Daotong Technology published copyrighted articles without authorization. Huatai preserved both the original publication and evidence of the infringement as blockchain-stored records, then produced them in court. The Hangzhou Internet Court accepted the blockchain evidence — the first court worldwide to formally admit blockchain-preserved records in litigation. The ruling was subsequently codified: China's Supreme People's Court issued formal regulations in 2018 recognizing blockchain as a legitimate evidence preservation mechanism, binding on all courts nationwide. Outcome: 4,000 RMB damages.
Hangzhou Internet Court · June 2018 — Key holding (official English translation)
“Blockchain technology, with its advantages of distributed storage, tamper-proof mechanism and traceability, can be used as a technical means to preserve electronic data.”
The court validated the blockchain-stored evidence on the basis that it had “clear source, [traceable] generation and transmission paths,” corroborated by webpage screenshots and source code, finding the data “had not been tampered with.”
From the official English summary published by China Courts. Subsequently codified by China's Supreme People's Court as a binding national evidentiary standard.
Official English summary — China Courts →These rulings — primarily in copyright but directly analogous to patent prior-art challenges — confirm the evidentiary strength of public blockchain ledgers across major jurisdictions. For patent invalidity specifically, combine the ledger proof with the appropriate proceeding: IPR in the US, opposition at the EPO, or invalidation at CNIPA in China.
Not a patent. A PriorMark claim does not confer exclusive rights to make, use, or sell any invention. Only a granted patent provides that protection. The United States and most countries operate under a first-to-file patent system — filing a patent application is the only way to secure patent rights.
Not a copyright registration. Copyright exists automatically upon creation of an original work, but a PriorMark record is not a substitute for formal copyright registration, which provides additional legal remedies.
Not a search for prior art. We do not search existing patents, published applications, or prior PriorMark claims to determine whether your idea is novel. Your claim is recorded as submitted — novelty assessment is your responsibility.
Not a guarantee of enforceability. The value of a timestamped record as legal evidence varies by jurisdiction, court, and context. We make no representation that a PriorMark record will be accepted or sufficient in any particular legal proceeding.
Content encryption. If you choose the Proof + Storage tier, your content is encrypted with AES-256-GCM before leaving your browser. We store only the encrypted ciphertext — we never hold your decryption key and cannot read your content. You retain the key and can download your encrypted files at any time.
Content hashing. The SHA-3/512 hash is computed from the plaintext before encryption. The hash recorded on Hedera reflects your original content — not the encrypted version. Even we cannot alter the content without breaking the hash.
Email addresses. Your email address is used solely for authentication and to associate your account with your claims. We do not sell or share email addresses with third parties.
For a full explanation of the cryptographic stack, see the Technology page.
Timestamps are assigned by the Hedera consensus network, not by PriorMark. The consensus timestamp reflects when the Hedera network reached agreement on your message — typically within a few seconds of submission. We have no ability to backdate or alter timestamps once a message is submitted. Hedera is governed by a global council of independent organizations; we cannot guarantee its permanent operation, but records already written to the ledger are tamper-proof and independently verifiable regardless of PriorMark's status.
Your proof of claim is designed to survive without us. The SHA-3/512 hash and your submission timestamp are permanently recorded on the Hedera public ledger. To verify your claim independently, you need only your original files and your HashScan link — no PriorMark account required.
If PriorMark ceases to operate, we commit to: (1) providing 30 days' notice to all users via email, and (2) keeping the self-verification guide accessible throughout that period so you can confirm your claims independently before we go dark.
Keep your original files. They are your evidence. The hash on the ledger proves those files existed at that timestamp — but only if you can produce the original content to hash and compare.
Last updated: April 2026
This disclaimer is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to your situation.