Source: https://computerlaw.com.au/doku.php?id=inventorship&rev=1501401775&do=diff
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:12:01+00:00

Document:
+ 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.
+ 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) )).
+ * 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.
+ * 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.
+ * 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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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 )).
+ 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.
+ 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) )).
+ 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) )).
+ 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) )).
+ 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.
+ - 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]]//  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.
+ The implications of getting inventorship wrong are determined by the national laws of each Contracting State in respect of which the patent is granted.
+ 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.
+ 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.

References: §101
 §116
 §116
 §256
 §256
 §116
 §256
 §256