White SW Computer Law
Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 Australia
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email: wcl@computerlaw.com.au Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


inventorship

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

inventorship [2017/07/30 18:02] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Inventorship and Patent applications ======
 +
 +===== Sarah Pike, Solicitor - White SW Computer Law =====
 +
 +The way in which inventorship is determined and dealt with by the Patent Offices in Australia, the United States and Europe differ, even though these jurisdictions have sought to harmonise their respective patent laws.  This can be significant where a party seeks to patent an invention in more than one of these jurisdictions.
 +
 +===== Australia =====
 +
 +==== Tests for inventorship in relation to patent applications ====
 +
 +The //Patents Act 1990// (Cth) does not define the terms “inventor” or “inventorship”,​ however, there has been judicial consideration regarding the term inventor, particularly in matters involving an application under s32(( //Patents Act 1990// (Cth) )) or s36(( //Patents Act 1990// (Cth) )).
 +
 +In //​[[case_links#​Atlantis Corp Pty ltd v Schindler|Atlantis Corp Pty ltd v Schindler]]//​(( [1997] 1105 FCA )), the Full Federal Court stated that the term inventor //“bears its ordinary English meaning”//​
 +
 +Indicators of inventorship have been discussed in a number of cases, including:
 +  * //​[[case_links#​Sunstrum and Payette v Boland|Sunstrum and Payette v Boland]]//​(( [2003] APO 16 ))
 +      * the ability to provide evidence which sets out a logical progression by which the inventor arrived at the invention, preferably corroborated by others, demonstrating the design process they went through or how they arrived at the concept of the invention
 +     * the ability to consistently and accurately describe the mechanism set out in the provisional patent application despite the fact that it had not been sighted.
 +  * //​[[case_links#​Harris v. CSIRO|Harris v. CSIRO]]//(( 26 IPR 469 )) - where ownership is disputed:
 +     * what the invention(s) is/are of the person claiming to be the inventor
 +     * what the invention(s) disclosed in the specifications is/are of the person who made the patent application
 +     * whether one person has any rights in the invention of the other, and vice versa
 +  * //​[[case_links#​Costa v GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd|Costa v GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd]]//(( 29 IPR 241 ))
 +     * Did the invention only occur because of the involvement of multiple parties? ​ For example, one person who had a general idea of what was required to solve the problem and one person who had the know how to give effect to those ideas, with the creation of the invention requiring the input of the both parties.
 +  * //​[[case_links#​CSIRO v Gilbert and Hazlewood|CSIRO v Gilbert and Hazlewood]]//​(( 31 IPR 67 ))
 +     * The rights in an invention do not flow from an assessment of the inventiveness of respective contributions but rather from an objective assessment of the contribution to the invention itself, therefore where there is collaboration between parties, entitlements to any inventions associated with the collaboration,​ are shared between the parties. ​
 +  * //​[[case_links#​Falkenhagen v Polemate Pty Ltd|Falkenhagen v Polemate Pty Ltd]]//(( [1995] APO 32 ))
 +     * A second person, engaged because of that person'​s expertise to construct a device based on instructions from or given the concept of a first person, is not normally regarded as an inventor of the device, even if the second person suggests ways to aid its design or operation. ​
 +     * If the second person'​s suggestions give a result or advantage not contemplated by the original concept, such that the resulting device is an improved one not merely a preferred workable embodiment of the original concept, then the second person may qualify as a joint inventor of the improved device.
 +
 +==== Implications of getting inventorship wrong ====
 +
 +The implications of getting inventorship wrong can have minor administrative consequences. ​ For example, where the inventors'​ names are not stated on the request form and no notice of entitlement has been filed, the examiner should draw the applicant'​s attention to the need to either include the inventors'​ names in the notice of entitlement or else amend the request to include the inventor'​s names in it.
 +
 +However, the consequence of getting inventorship wrong can also be quite serious – for example if a patent is granted to one of two inventors, without an assignment between them or to a person with no entitlement at all, that patent can be set aside at the suit of a party against whom the patentee seeks to enforce it(( //​[[case_links#​Davies Shephard Pty Ltd v Stack|Davies Shephard Pty Ltd v Stack]]// (2001) 51 IPR 513 )).
 +
 +If an application is made under ss 32, 36, 59 or 138(( //Patent Act 1990// (Cth) )), depending on the section relied on, the Commissioner may determine the name(s) in which a patent application proceeds, make a declaration as to the inventorship for the invention, refuse to grant a patent or revoke a patent. ​ Therefore, the Commissioner and the Court have wide powers to change or remedy the claimed inventorship for a patent application.
 +
 +==== How an incorrect listing of inventors may be corrected before the Patent Office ====
 +
 +**Section 32**\\
 +A s32 request should be made only where a patent application has not lapsed. ​ Pursuant to Regulation 3.6(( //Patent Regulations 1991// (Cth) )), a s32 request must be submitted in the approved form, including a notice stating the grounds on which the request is made.  This request is published and the matter is determined by the Commissioner,​ without the parties being heard, unless the parties otherwise request.
 +
 +If the parties request to be heard they must file evidence in support of their positions after which, the Commissioner will hear the application.
 +
 +**Section 36**\\
 +A s36 application is made if a dispute arises after a patent application has lapsed, but only if the patent request and complete specification have not been accepted(( //Patents Act 1990// (Cth), s36(1)(a) )).
 +
 +A s36 request must be submitted in the approved form, including a notice stating the grounds on which the request is made(( //Patent Regulations 1991// (Cth), reg 3.7 )) and may result in the Commissioner declaring in writing that the applicant or other parties are eligible persons in relation to the inventor – this may be as a result of an inventor not being recorded as the inventor and / or eligible person in the application. ​ Prior to a declaration being made, the former patentee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard(( //Patents Act 1990// (Cth), s36(3) )).
 +
 +Pursuant to s59(( //Patents Act 1990// (Cth) )), if the patent application has been accepted, a party can file a notice of opposition within 3 months of the date on which the patent application was advertised as accepted(( //Patent Regulations 1991// (Cth), reg 5.3(1) )).  A valid ground for opposition is if a patent application specifies the wrong nominated person as being entitled to a grant of a patent for the invention or that co-entitle persons are not included as nominated persons. ​ This may arise when the true inventor is not named as the nominated person (and has not assigned their interest to another party) or if not every co-inventor is named (and they have not assigned their interest to another party).
 +
 +Similarly, if a patent has been granted, pursuant to s138, it can be revoked if the patentee is not entitled to the invention – again, this may occur if the true inventor is not named as patentee (and has not assigned their interest to another party) or if not every co-inventor is named (and they have not assigned their interest to another party).
 +
 +Where an incorrect listing of inventors has occurred merely as a result of a clerical error or an obvious mistake, pursuant to s104(1)(b) an applicant for a patent or a patentee may ask the Commissioner for leave to amend the relevant patent request or complete specification,​ or any other filed document for the purpose of correcting the error or mistake.
 +
 +==== Restrictions on the correction of such errors ====
 +
 +The restrictions of the correction of the listing of inventors are that the time limitations mentioned above apply and the burden of proof that ordinarily rests with the applicant requesting the correction.
 +
 +===== The United States =====
 +
 +==== Tests for inventorship in relation to patent applications ====
 +
 +In general, whoever invents or discovers any patentable subject matter may obtain a patent for that subject matter(( 35 USC §101 )).  In the Unites States, the inventor is the person who conceived the patented invention(( //​[[case_links#​CR Bard Inc v M3 Sys Inc|CR Bard Inc v M3 Sys Inc]]// 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed Cir 1998) )).  In the United States, conception //“is the touchstone of inventorship”//​(( //​[[case_links#​Ethicon Inc v United States Surgical Corp|Ethicon Inc v United States Surgical Corp]]// 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed Cir 1998) )).
 +
 +As stated in //​[[case_links#​Mueller Brass Co v Reading Industries|Mueller Brass Co v Reading Industries]]//​(( (1972) 176 USPQ 361 at 372 )) //“to claim inventorship is to claim at least some role in the final conception of that which is sought to be patented. Perhaps one need not be able to point to a specific component as one's sole idea, but one must be able to say that without his contribution to the final conception, it would have been less - less efficient, less simple, less economical, less something of benefit”//​.
 +
 +In the case of joint inventorship,​ there are no explicit minimum requirement regarding either quantum or quality of inventive contribution required(( 35 USC §116 )).  The question of joint ownership turns on the facts of the case(( //​[[case_links#​Fina Oil & Chem Co v Ewan|Fina Oil & Chem Co v Ewan]]// 123 f3d 1466 (Fed Cir 1997) )).  It is assessed on a claim by claim basis as co-inventors do not have to have contributed to the subject material of every claim(( //​[[case_links#​Ethicon Inc v United States Surgical Corp|Ethicon Inc v United States Surgical Corp]]// 135 F.3d 1456 )).
 +
 +The most important issue to consider is “conception”,​ which is the //​“formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention”//​(( Harmon, R //Patents and the Federal Circuit//, p446 )).  This means that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. ​ However the invention must include every feature as claimed in the patent application(( Harmon, R //Patents and the Federal Circuit//, p446 )).
 +
 +==== Implications of getting inventorship wrong ====
 +
 +Section 102(f)(( 35 USC )) requires that the correct inventors be listed in a patent. ​ Therefore a patent may be held invalid if more or less than the true inventors are named.
 +
 +==== How an incorrect listing of inventors may be corrected before the Patent Office ====
 +
 +For patent applications,​ pursuant to §116(( 35 USC )), the inventorship claimed in a pending application may be corrected, where fewer than the true inventors are named, provided that the omitted parties were not omitted with deceptive intent on behalf of the omitted parties(( //​[[case_links#​Trovan Ltd v Sokymat SA|Trovan Ltd v Sokymat SA]]// 299 F.3d 1292 (Fed Cir 2002) )).
 +
 +For issued patents, §256(( 35 USC )) allows for correction of the inventorship for a patent(( //​[[case_links#​CR Bard Inc v M3 Sys Inc|CR Bard Inc v M3 Sys Inc]]// 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed Cir 1998) )) upon application to the Commissioner,​ where the patentees and their assignees (if any) agree.  ​
 +
 +Section 102(f) is ameliorated by §256, which saves the patent from being rendered invalid. ​ In all cases where there is a misjoined inventor, §256 may be used to correct the error, whether it occurred by deception or innocent mistake(( //​[[case_links#​Stark v Advanced Magnetics, Inc|Stark v Advanced Magnetics, Inc]]// 119 F3d 1551 (Fed Cir 1997) )).
 +
 +Where the parties do not agree to the correction of the inventorship for a patent, §256 allows redress in the federal court(( //​[[case_links#​MCV,​ Inc v King-Seeley Thermos Co|MCV, Inc v King-Seeley Thermos Co]]// 870 F3d 1568 (Fed Cir 1989) )).  ​
 +
 +==== Restrictions on the correction of such errors ====
 +
 +The inventors named in the patent are presumed to be correct, so the burden of proof in a §116 or §256 application rests on the applicant and must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence(( //​[[case_links#​Hess v Advanced Cardiovascular Sys, Inc|Hess v Advanced Cardiovascular Sys, Inc]]// 106 F3d 976 (Fed Cir 1997) )).
 +
 +There is no time limitation on the period during which inventorship can be corrected pursuant to §256, however normal equitable principals may arise if there is undue delay by a party seeking the correction(( //​[[case_links#​Stark v Advanced Magnetics, Inc|Stark v Advanced Magnetics, Inc]]// 119 F3d 1551 (Fed Cir 1997) )).
 +
 +===== Europe =====
 +
 +==== Tests for inventorship in relation to patent applications ====
 +
 +The European Patent Convention (EPC) provides a system under which a patent application is only examined by the European Patent Office (EPO), but results in patent rights in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted. ​ A European patent confers the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State.
 +
 +The EPC grants an inventor the rights to a European patent, but does not define the term inventor. ​ Inventorship is determined by the national laws in each Contracting State.
 +
 +For example, in the United Kingdom, the term inventor is defined as //"the actual deviser of the invention"//​(( //Patents Act 1977// (UK), s7(3) )).  This definition has been interpreted by the UK courts as meaning a two step process:
 +  - Determining the inventive concept by construing the claims in the patent specification;​ and 
 +  - Determining who devised that inventive concept and the contribution of each of the the various parties involved(( //​[[case_links#​Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office|Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office]]// [1999] RPC 442, 446, CA )).
 +
 +Inventions made in the course of employment, are a special case, with inventorship being determined by the national laws of the country in which the employer conducts their business.
 +
 +==== Implications of getting inventorship wrong ====
 +
 +The implications of getting inventorship wrong are determined by the national laws of each Contracting State in respect of which the patent is granted.
 +
 +==== How an incorrect listing of inventors may be corrected before the Patent Office ====
 +
 +Rule 19(( Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents )) provides that an incorrect designation of an inventor may be rectified where the request to do so is accompanied by the consent of the wrongly designated person and if the request is not filed by the applicant for or proprietor of the European patent, by the consent of that party. ​ The incorrect mention of the inventor in the Register of European Patents or as published in the European Patent Bulletin will be corrected
 +
 +==== Restrictions on the correction of such errors ====
 +
 +Article 62(( European Patent Convention )) states that the inventor shall have the right, vis-à-vis the applicant for or proprietor of a European patent, to be mentioned as such before the European Patent Office. ​ There are no limitations placed on this right of the inventor.
 +
 +Again, any restrictions on the correction of an incorrect listing of inventors will be dependant upon the national laws of each Contracting State in respect of which the patent is granted.
 +
 +===== Conclusion =====
 +
 +Due to the differences in the way in which inventorship is treated in Australia, the United States and Europe, patent applicants who plan to apply for a grant in more than one of these jurisdictions should ensure that they can satisfy the most stringent requirements in all of the jurisdictions in which they are applying. ​ For example, the tests of inventorship in Australia are less precise than the tests used in the United States, therefore an applicant should ensure that their Australian application satisfies the standards required in the United States, to facilitate a later application in the United States or Europe.
 +
 +**SARAH PIKE**\\
 +**WHITE SW COMPUTER LAW**\\
 +**JUNE 2006**
 +
 +**www.computerlaw.com.au**
 +
 +**© White SW Computer Law 2006**
 +
 +This paper is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice, readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice. ​
  

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au