this this appeal is over the ownership issue of two patents from two different cases of consolidating one case and the confusion comes from the courts conflating a product which was shown on appendix one twenty six which is a balloon and a design for a balloon with a patent which has much broader farm technology much broader claims and many others and a body that protects a much wider range of intellectual property the court basis your patents is there any difference between the two patents on this issue there isn't that the problem i mean the problem is if a patent claims something owned by two owners even if one owner only owns a very small part of it is the specific design and your friend on the other side his client still owns that he owns the design of that product which is part of your patent but you can only what that's what we did it doesn't mean that he owns your ip that may have to be used in making that product but he owns that specific design and once you claim that specific design is part of your patent should you written a patent that has two owners no i don't believe that's correct because i don't believe the design is the same thing as the intellectual property you can have a manufacturer of a second manufacturer of laptop you can ask that manufacture to design you a very special version customized version you may own the design of that customized version and that manufacture can't sell it to anybody else but you can't then go claim all the underlying technology you only get again this was a a company wanted to sell a product that they could make a product and they went to poly's or are you going to pause and say hey can you you could have written this patent not to claim their design and then you would have had a problem but the agreement separates the design from ownership of the underlying intellectual property but that doesn't matter they're not claiming they own your underlying intellectual property they're probably are right that in order to make that specific design they have to use your ip but that doesn't mean the actual design itself is not intellectual property also the contract specifically states that they  patent to a contract can assign ownership of the design without assigning ownership of the intellectual property to that design you can assign ownership of the design if you owned it in the beginning but you never own they've also acknowledged through your briefing all the way through that it was radio daryn that came up with the actual design of the product and then it was your science job to figure out an interesting way to manufacture and through processing technology it working version of that and product and so what we have here is a contract where each side is a green that the other side gets to retain all rights to their technology that's contributed to manufacturing this product radii dime gets the design you get the whatever processing methods that come up with that you come up with and making that and product now you went ahead without telling the other side filing a pattern of the cation that goes to what a bunch of things but it definitely includes a series of claims for the actual end product which you agreed in the contract would be those rights to that product are reserved with radio done so in that sense the contract doesn't help you the contract keeps everybody's intellectual property rights separate from the other party and by you writing claims that are directed to arguably your technology as well as the other sites technology you've created a situation  now both co owners under the contract as well as under patent law i think that's the point here and that's why it sounds like judge hughes the no way out priya the the property the patent covers taking three layers of material to create that shape and so what the contract agreed was that radio i would own that final shape and polys and couldn't make that shape for anybody else we're claiming the patent claims the final shape which is what they own patent claims testing for later together to make a number of shapes well i've never seen a pattern that has an embodiment that you're not actually claiming when you does cover the radon but it's not only covering the radar you could have many other ships and balloons that have additional bulge and in claim one and play one  fourth layer on it would still in french but it would not be the design so the patent doesn't their claims which which the design would infringe but the dion's contribution was simply the shape where the bulge was in radio dying bring to the table and participate in the invention of the layering of the film in order to come up with this  there's no mention of the distal involved or whatever it is would you still own their underlying technology because of this agreement or in that case would they have kept the rights to everything and it would there just wouldn't be a patent on the don't just have claimed one if it was a clean one we have any case law that was explained you know what how do we understand how do we determine whether  else that somebody else gets to be doing the co inventor i haven't seen any cases with with that factual scenario but using the inventor ship analogy i would say for example if two parties come together and write a  card together and be came up with a very interesting novel new broken system and the weather party came up with a way to make the car all electric and then the claims are fo an all electric car it's completely silent on the braking system is the guy then came up with the braking system co inventor of that plane that is directed only  to an all electric car because that claim is so broad it covers an all electric car with any kind of braking system including the braking system that was invented by the other guy so under that actual center i would say no you are  the design nothing in the contract talks about patent rights because the parties agree or you can pay them half of the prosecution fees since you now think you own part of the patent they sought a different property right and or whatever it means they don't have standing but i don't know how to write this and explain it because i don't see how you're a quote comb owner of the patent i don't see anything in this contract that talks about ownership of patent rights i see that they have tried to obtain a patent partially covering your design which is improper under our precedent related to inventor ship if you contribute to any the inventor ship of any one claim the conception of anyone claim you're a co inventor and so i get ultimately that because somebody was in your company as a co inventor they can't assert a patent against you i get that part but i just don't i don't know hell it makes you magically a co owner i don't know what that means and i believe i would home right but not in here that says this they just they stole your thing this is ok so suppose that they stole entirely your design suppose that you came to them with a design one hundred percent yours none of it was the you came to them with the design to show it's now and you just asked and can you mass produce this for us they're just you know one of these importers or something that is going to last lose their machine or product for you know ingenuity involved whatsoever because of the knights of the product they say yes they turn around and file a patent on that whole design they are not the inventor at all and you think you own that patents what do you think that patent is invalid for failure to identify correct ownership either ship should be replaced with your company's boat but do you actually think you will the patent they pursued under my hypothetical absent some order or proceeding that would find that because of the incorrect inventor shipper or something no i don't think so i don't think the issue here is the contract and i want to go back to the reason to get really quickly right think it doesn't matter that license as joint ownership loosens and that contract in that case says existing work will remain the property of eighteen to  cover their device claim one covers a wide range of balloons claim to covers a wide range of balloons but they have to include a distal loach claim to does not cover the shape of the radiate i'm alone does not limited to that shape it's not bloom of a different shape with the same shape has three layers attached inside in the manner claimed then it infringes which is why this is not a patent to the design it's not a patent of the shape ok you can have the