A Putative Inventor’s Remedies to Correct Inventorship on a Patent

Inventorship is a required component of patents issued in the United States, and the penalty for filing a patent with incorrect inventorship is harsh: possible invalidation of the entire patent. This iBrief explores the background on inventorship in the United States patent system, and various remedies such as 35 U.S.C. §116, 35 U.S.C. §256, and interference proceedings in correcting errors in inventorship. This iBrief will then discuss the usefulness of these various remedies to a putative inventor who was left off the inventorship of a patent

The geography and co-location of European technology-specific co-inventorship networks

This paper contributes with empirical findings to European co-inventorship location and geographical coincidence of co-patenting networks. Based on EPO co-patenting information for the reference period 2000-2004, we analyze the spatial con figuration of 44 technology-specific co-inventorship networks. European co-inventorship (co-patenting) activity is spatially linked to 1259 European NUTS3 units (EU25+CH+NO) and their NUTS1 regions by inventor location. We extract 7.135.117 EPO co-patenting linkages from our own relational database that makes use of the OECD RegPAT (2009) files. The matching between International Patent Classification (IPC) subclasses and 44 technology fields is based on the ISI-SPRU-OST-concordance. We con firm the hypothesis that the 44 co-inventorship networks differ in their overall size (nodes, linkages, self-loops) and that they are dominated by similar groupings of regions. The paper offers statistical evidence for the presence of highly localized European co-inventorship networks for all 44 technology fields, as the majority of linkages between NUTS3 units (counties and districts) are within the same NUTS1 regions. Accordingly, our findings helps to understand general presence of positive spatial autocorrelation in regional patent data. Our analysis explicitly accounts for different network centrality measures (betweenness, degree, eigenvector). Spearman rank correlation coefficients for all 44 technology fields confirm that most co-patenting networks co-locate in those regions that are central in several technology-specific co-patenting networks. These findings support the hypothesis that leading European regions are indeed multi- filed network nodes and that most research collaboration is taking place in dense co-patenting networks. --Co-patenting,co-inventorship,networks,linkages,co-location,RegPAT

Fairplay or Greed: Mandating University Responsibility Toward Student Inventors

Over twenty years have passed since the enactment of The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Bayh-Dole Act) and universities continue to struggle with their technology transfer infrastructures. Lost in that struggle are those who could be considered the backbone of university research: the students. Graduate and undergraduate students remain baffled by the patent assignment and technology transfer processes within their various institutions. Efforts should be undertaken by universities to clarify the student\u27s position in the creative process

OddzOn Products and Derivation of Invention: At Odds with the Purpose of Section 102(f) of the Patent Act of 1952?

Abstract Background Antimicrobial peptides are important components of the host defence with a broad range of functions including direct antimicrobial activity and modulation of inflammation. Lack of cathelin-related antimicrobial peptide (CRAMP) was associated with higher mortality and bacterial burden and impaired neutrophil granulocyte infiltration in a model of pneumococcal meningitis. The present study was designed to characterize the effects of CRAMP deficiency on glial response and phagocytosis after exposure to bacterial stimuli. Methods CRAMP-knock out and wildtype glial cells were exposed to bacterial supernatants from Streptococcus pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitides or the bacterial cell wall components lipopolysaccharide and peptidoglycan. Cell viability, expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators and activation of signal transduction pathways, phagocytosis rate and glial cell phenotype were investigated by means of cell viability assays, immunohistochemistry, real-time RT-PCR and Western blot. Results CRAMP-deficiency was associated with stronger expression of pro-inflammatory and weakened expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines indicating a higher degree of glial cell activation even under resting-state conditions. Furthermore, increased translocation of nuclear factor ‘kappa-light-chain-enhancer’ of activated B-cells was observed and phagocytosis of S. pneumoniae was reduced in CRAMP-deficient microglia indicating impaired antimicrobial activity. Conclusions In conclusion, the present study detected severe alterations of the glial immune response due to lack of CRAMP. The results indicate the importance of CRAMP to maintain and regulate the delicate balance between beneficial and harmful immune response in the brain

Fairplay or Greed: Mandating University Responsibility Toward Student Inventors

Over twenty years have passed since the enactment of The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Bayh-Dole Act) and universities continue to struggle with their technology transfer infrastructures. Lost in that struggle are those who could be considered the backbone of university research: the students. Graduate and undergraduate students remain baffled by the patent assignment and technology transfer processes within their various institutions. Efforts should be undertaken by universities to clarify the student\u27s position in the creative process

A Victory for the Student Researcher: Chou v. University of Chicago

For years, graduate and other student researchers at universities have alleged that the hierarchical system in academic research allows supervising PhDs to steal and patent inventions that were rightfully discovered by students. In July 2001, the Federal Circuit finally addressed these concerns by interpreting the law in a way that strictly protects the rights of student researchers. This article examines this long-overdue change in the law and discusses its potential implications

Network communities within and across borders

We investigate the impact of borders on the topology of spatially embedded networks. Indeed territorial subdivisions and geographical borders significantly hamper the geographical span of networks thus playing a key role in the formation of network communities. This is especially important in scientific and technological policy-making, highlighting the interplay between pressure for the internationalization to lead towards a global innovation system and the administrative borders imposed by the national and regional institutions. In this study we introduce an outreach index to quantify the impact of borders on the community structure and apply it to the case of the European and US patent co-inventors networks. We find that (a) the US connectivity decays as a power of distance, whereas we observe a faster exponential decay for Europe; (b) European network communities essentially correspond to nations and contiguous regions while US communities span multiple states across the whole country without any characteristic geographic scale. We confirm our findings by means of a set of simulations aimed at exploring the relationship between different patterns of cross-border community structures and the outreach index.Comment: Scientific Reports 4, 201

Searching for an Efficacious Joint Inventorship Standard

Congress\u27s 1984 amendments to 35 U.S.C. 116 lowered the bar for establishing joint inventorship of a patent but did not clarify the uncertainty inherent in joint inventorship law. The crux of this uncertainty is the ability of a person to become a joint inventor because of a minor contribution to an invention and, thus, to obtain ownership rights commensurate with those of more significant contributors. This circumstance obscures the respective rights of researchers, enables dubious legal arguments regarding those rights, mandates unnecessary legal involvement in the research process, and inhibits research collaboration. This Note reviews current joint inventorship and joint ownership law and evaluates potential reforms. The Note concludes that a judicial matrix approach to joint inventorship, incorporating clear rules adapted to specific contextual concerns, would best achieve the policies and goals of patent law

The 1967 Patent Law Debate—First-to-Invent vs. First-to-File

United States patent law has traditionally been based on the proposition that the first inventor, not the first person to file a patent application, is the only person entitled to a patent. Nevertheless, the President\u27s Commission on the Patent System has proposed that patent rights be awarded on a first-to-file basis, and this recommendation is now embodied in bills before Congress. The author urges that the conclusion that a pure first-to-file system would be better for the United States should not be too hastily drawn. He reveals that the present United States patent system is neither purely a first-to-invent nor first-to-file system, but a hybrid system containing many features of both that gives a great advantage to the first person to file a patent application while also retaining important aspects of a first-to-invent system