First-to-file is basically meant to get rid of "interference" lawsuits.
And, in general, it's not the apocalypse you might expect because prior art can still invalidate a patent.
The USA is basically on its own with first-to-invent. Everyone else is on first-to-file. And generally speaking, it works pretty well. There are absolutely anomalies, but there are mechanisms to deal with them. The payoff is a simply abolishing a massively expensive and difficult field of litigation.
It's a lot like how the Torrens land title system dramatically increased the security of land title, while also driving out whole classes of litigation and fraud. It changed real estate, land ownership and development for the better.
Other countries force the loser in a lawsuit to cover the costs. Perhaps that's why they don't have so many companies using patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first place.
In Australia, depending on the case, it is usually at the judge's discretion to "award costs". Not precisely the same, but it's a risk you run as litigant.
And, in general, it's not the apocalypse you might expect because prior art can still invalidate a patent.
The USA is basically on its own with first-to-invent. Everyone else is on first-to-file. And generally speaking, it works pretty well. There are absolutely anomalies, but there are mechanisms to deal with them. The payoff is a simply abolishing a massively expensive and difficult field of litigation.
It's a lot like how the Torrens land title system dramatically increased the security of land title, while also driving out whole classes of litigation and fraud. It changed real estate, land ownership and development for the better.
(IANAL, TINLA)