Q: How can I prove my own property on the patent after publishing?

A: I am going to assume that your fact pattern is that you invented a new nanomaterial and communicated details about this new material to a person in the US. That person has subsequently filed a patent application which you have seen as it has published.

Step 1 -- take care to preserve all information that can substantiate not only that you were the first to invent but your communications which provided the details of this invention to the party in Texas.

You will need to work with competent patent counsel as this is not a do-it-yourself project. In 2013, the United States shifted from a pure first-to-invent country to a mostly first-to-file country. In a first-to-file country, the person who files a patent application first generally wins. The exception is that the person who files first must be the actual inventor and cannot steal an idea from someone else. See 35 USC Section 102(b)(2)(A) -- essentially the prior art effect of the new patent application publication does not impact you as the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor (You).

I would work with a patent attorney to get an appropriate patent application filed (be sure not to include anything from the recently published patent application by the Texas party that you did not invent).

After that, there is a derivation proceeding see https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/derivation-proceeding . Per the USPTO, a derivation proceeding is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine whether (i) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application, and (ii) the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding only within 1 year of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention. The petition must be supported by substantial evidence that the claimed invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner's application. The procedure for derivation took effect on March 16, 2013.

As not many attorneys have used this new process, you will need to consult with a law firm that has handled more than one of these. Probably makes sense for the firm that will handle the derivation proceeding to draft your patent application to make sure the two parts of this solution compliment one another.

I am afraid that this may be expensive. It is possible that when you get your application filed and notify the Texas party that you intend to institute a derivation proceeding and expose this thievery, that the Texas party will agree to withdraw their earlier filed patent application.

I wish you luck.

Kevin E Flynn