Posts Tagged: "inventorship"

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a district court’s decision dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 2018-1028, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2019) (Before Prost, C.J., Wallach, Hughes, J.) (Opinion for the Court, Prost, C.J.) Coda Development and Frantisek Hrabal (collectively “Coda”) sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for trade secret misappropriation and correction of inventorship of 12 Goodyear patents directed to self-inflating tire (SIT) technology. Coda alleged that, during several confidential meetings held between the parties, Goodyear copied Coda’s inventions and filed patent applications based on those inventions without naming Coda as an inventor or co-inventor. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.

The Federal Circuit heard the case on Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften e.V. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to award attorney fees to Max Planck. The case involved an inventorship dispute over the “Tuschl II patents,” for certain RNAi discoveries, and owned by Max Planck. March 2000, the Max Planck inventors published an article describing certain RNAi discoveries. A month later, Dr. Bass of the University of Utah published a review article discussing the Max Planck article and offering some hypotheses regarding RNAi. The Tuschl II patents were filed on subject matter that was influenced by testing Dr. Bass’ hypotheses. The University of Utah sued Max Planck, alleging that Dr. Bass is either a sole or joint inventor of the Tuschl II patents… The Court will not second-guess a district court’s finding that a case was not “exceptional” so long as the Court reasonably explained why the case does not stand out from other patent cases. A district court is not constrained to a specific or formulaic approach proposed in cases like Octane Fitness.

At the center of the legal spat is the proper assignation of a series of patents covering DNA sequencing technologies, which UC alleges were developed while the inventor was under an agreement obliging him to assign those patents to UC… Chen’s work in the UCSC biophysics lab led to the development of a series of inventions related to individually addressable nanopores, which can be used to characterize a nucleic acid sequence in a nucleic acid molecule. These inventions were described in patent applications filed by UC with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) listing Chen as an inventor… Instead of following his contractual obligations to assign his invention to UC, Chen allegedly filed patent applications and received patent grants assigned to medical technology firm Genia Technologies, a company he founded in March 2009 after leaving UCSC.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is coming for your job. But is it coming for the job of your photographer or inventor? The driver-less cars, automated factories, and automated laboratories of today may give way to AI capable of thinking, writing, creating or even diagnosing disease. So it certainly seems feasible that AI is coming for the jobs of creators like photographers and inventors, although we may be many years away from true “general AI” capable of human-like intelligence. Nevertheless, automation is taking over many tasks once relegated to humans — like running laboratory experiments or being a lawyer.

Drone sued Parrot for indirect infringement of two patents relating to remote-controlled drones… The Federal Circuit sided with Drone and refused to substantively examine inventorship, where Drone’s claim to title was not otherwise in dispute. Inventorship of an issued patent is presumed correct, and Parrot provided no persuasive reason why the Court must litigate inventorship as part of the standing analysis. Alternatively, Parrot may challenge inventorship as an invalidity defense, but doing so under the guise of standing is improper.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether there was substantial evidence supporting the district court’s finding that Nathan and Matheson should be added as co-inventors. In determining that the inventorship evidence below was sufficient, the Court reiterated that all inventors are required to be named even if their contribution is limited to a single aspect of a single claim, and that co-inventors need not have collaborated at the same time to be named.

Assignments are the mechanism to transfer title of a patent, just like deeds are used to transfer real estate… For due diligence, the owners of the patents should provide all of the assignments in a chain of title. The chain of title always starts with the inventor and will progress to the current owner. If there are any license agreements relating to the patents, each of the previous owners of the patents should provide copies of the agreements.

The Court expressly held that concrete and particularized reputational injury alone can give rise to Article III standing to correct inventorship under § 256. Recognition as an inventor of an important patent is as significant to an inventor’s career as is authoring a scientific paper. Further, pecuniary consequences may flow from being designated an inventor, particularly for professionals employed as inventors. Here, Dr. Shukh presented numerous questions of material fact concerning whether his omission from the contested patents caused him a reputational injury.