Source: https://www.fr.com/news/issues-in-identifying-contributors-to-inventions-under-u-s-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:20:54+00:00

Document:
J. Peter Fasse is a principal at Fish & Richardson PC in Boston. At the time this chapter was written, Erin Kaiser was a summer associate at Fish & Richardson PC.
This chapter addresses inventorship and ownership issues, as may arise in a university or hospital setting. The chapter first defines inventorship and its legal background. Second, it addresses the complications that can arise when there are possible joint inventors and provides general guidelines for determining inventorship. Third, it describes the differences between inventorship and authorship. Fourth, it addresses the differences between inventorship and ownership. Finally, it discusses how to correct inventorship in the event of an error.
Under U.S. law, only the first, original inventor(s) can obtain patent protection for an invention.1 Inventorship is defined by statutory provisions of Chapter 35 of the U.S. Code (USC) as interpreted by case law. Despite these legal underpinnings, the process of determining inventorship is a very fact-specific endeavor. A first basic principle often misunderstood by inventors is that inventorship is determined in view of the claims at the end of a patent application that define the invention, not the content of the specification.
Once you understand the claims of a patent application, you review the process of invention in two parts: (1) conception and (2) reduction to practice. Conception is the key aspect for determining inventorship, i.e., to be an inventor, a person must make an intellectual contribution to the conception of the claimed invention.
Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention. It is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Because it is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that would enable one skilled in the art to make the invention.
Conception is a mental act, but courts do not accept an inventor’s testimony alone to prove conception. Proof of conception requires corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that is sufficient in scope and detail to enable one skilled in the art to make the invention.3 Thus, when you determine inventorship, it is important to have all potential inventors present laboratory notebook pages, charts, graphs, invention disclosure forms, e-mails, and any other documents that support their claim of inventorship. These materials should be collected and saved in the application file to support the decisions made on inventorship once the patent issues and for use during prosecution of the patent application or in litigation of the issued patent in the event it becomes necessary to prove dates of conception and/or reduction to practice.
The second part of the process of invention, reduction to practice, may be relevant to determining inventorship in that whether an individual is a co-inventor depends on whether his or her contribution constituted part of the conception or a mere reduction to practice. In this regard, one who does no more than reduce a completely conceived invention to practice is not an inventor.4 Reduction to practice can also become important if a date of invention must be proved, for example, in a declaration by the inventors to demonstrate a date of invention prior to the publication date of a reference published less than a year before the inventors’ application filing date or in an interference proceeding.
Reduction to practice can be actual or constructive. An actual reduction to practice exists when, for example, a new device, composition, or machine is successfully made and tested, or a process is performed successfully. A constructive reduction to practice occurs when a patent application having a sufficient written description of the invention is filed, regardless of whether there has been an actual reduction to practice.
[T]here is no known relation between chemical structure and insecticidal action, therefore, it is obviously impossible to predict or determine in advance of actual experiment whether or not any specific compound or group of compounds is a new and useful insecticide.
Cases such as Bousquet and Amgen, however, do not stand for the proposition that, in an unpredictable art, someone who merely executes instructions and carries out experiments designed by the inventors to reduce an invention to practice becomes a co-inventor. Even though conception is not complete until the reduction to practice has occurred in this scenario, the person or persons who simply reduce the invention to practice based on the suggestion or instructions of others are not inventors.
Joint Inventorship: Who Are the True Inventors?
Third, merely posing a problem to be solved or suggesting a desired result does not constitute inventorship.17 Thus, the head of a laboratory who poses a problem may not be an inventor if he or she has done nothing more. Similarly, one who merely funds the research of others, or provides laboratory space or materials, without more, is also not a co-inventor.
Fifth, although a co-inventor’s contribution may be relatively small compared to that of his or her co-inventor(s), the contribution must be “not insignificant in quality.”20 In some situations, a collaborator contributes to the conception of a minor point, but if that point merits inclusion in the claims, then the collaborator should be named as an inventor. On the other hand, if that minor point is covered in only one or a few claims, you may decide to omit those claims to exclude that collaborator from being listed as an inventor.
Of course, it is important to remember that, in this hypothetical, the person requesting the sequencing service has the clone in hand. In the Fiers case, Fiers did not. Fiers argued that his conception date was the date on which he had a workable method for isolating the gene (encoding beta-interferon). In denying Fiers the conception date, the Federal Circuit stated: “We conclude that the Board correctly decided that conception of the DNA of the count did not occur upon conception of a method for obtaining it.”25 Thus, the Federal Circuit in Fiers did not suggest that a technician who sequences a clone isolated by someone else is a co-inventor of claims to the nucleic acid sequence of that clone.
At all times, it is incumbent upon you to be alert to inventorship issues. Although inventorship must be determined according to facts provided by the authors(s), the conclusion as to who among them is an inventor is a legal determination. You should always be prepared to provide to the authors a cogent explanation of the differences between inventorship and authorship, when the question arises.
When conducting in-house seminars or other training relating to patents, academic technology transfer offices should devote at least some time to a discussion of inventorship issues and the distinctions between inventorship and authorship determinations. Such a discussion will pay off in future avoidance of potential misunderstandings and discord among scientific colleagues and collaborators during the patenting process.27 In addition, the final determination of inventorship can be assigned to outside counsel, who can then take the responsibility (and blame) for the decision, and deflect the potential anger of persons who were not named as inventors away from the technology transfer managers.
Inventorship and ownership of a patent can also be two different things. As a general rule, the named inventor is presumed to be the owner of the patent unless there is an assignment. As a result of this distinction, collaborative research between companies or between academic institutions, and between academic institutions and companies, can present difficult and complex patent considerations for inventorship as well as ownership.
Most academic institutions and companies require that employees assign to the institution or company all rights, title, and interest in inventions developed by the employee while an employee of the institution or company. Courts construe this obligation broadly and apply it to personnel who work at an institution, even if they are not exactly employees.28 The Federal Circuit has found that assignment requirements can exist even in the absence of a signed contract.29 As a result, a collaboration between two unrelated institutions raises issues as to ownership, because the collaborators, as inventors, will assign their rights to different entities.
[E]ach of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.
This means that one co-owner (or co-inventor) can sell the patented invention without having to pay anything to any other co-owner (or co-inventor). Similarly, one co-owner can grant a license to a company without the consent of the other co-owners and without having to give the other co-owners a share of the license royalties. It is important for an institution that has outside collaborations to consider ownership issues carefully, particularly when the institution is seeking to license the technology arising from such collaborations. A licensee may be less likely to take a license, or may offer a much lower royalty, if another co-owner has the ability to license the same technology to a competitor. Thus, all co-owners should consider contractual arrangements, e.g., interinstitutional agreements, to provide a consolidated front to potential licensees. It is also important to consider the effect of research collaborations on inventorship in view of Perceptive Biosystems v. Pharmacia Biotech.30 In Perseptive, the district court concluded that the patent applicant had made a series of misrepresentations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) about a research collaboration, that the misrepresentations were material to inventorship and were designed to obfuscate the issue of correct inventorship, and that these misrepresentations constituted inequitable conduct before the USPTO. The Federal Circuit agreed. Thus, it is important for academic institutions and companies to be aware of research collaborations between their own inventors and third parties and properly characterize any such collaborations before the USPTO.
What if I Made a Mistake in Determining Inventorship?
A simple petition that sets forth the facts, names the proper inventors, and asserts that there was no deceptive intention can be used to request the correction of inventorship under 37 CFR § 1.48.
Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.
Thus, given the appropriate facts, the error of omitting inventors or naming incorrect inventors will not necessarily invalidate the patent in which the error occurred. Instead, after a hearing of all concerned parties, the court can order correction of the patent and the USPTO then issues a certificate correcting inventorship. Of course, if some of the named inventors are not true inventors, and intentionally deceived the USPTO, then the patent, though valid, may be unenforceable for inequitable conduct, but that is an issue for another chapter.
2. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
3. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir., 1993).
4. Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
5. Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157, 162, 45 USPQ 347, 352 (CCPA 1940).
7. Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
10. Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 47 USPQ2d 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Fina Oil and Chemical Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.”) (quoting Burroughs).
11. Ethicon Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 45 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
12. Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries Inc., 176 USPQ 361, 372 (E.D. Pa 1972), aff’d, 180 USPQ 547 (3rd Cir., 1973).
13. Fina Oil, supra note 10 at 1473.
14. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Proctor & Gamble Dist. Co. Inc., 973 F.2d 911, 23 USPQ2d 1921 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
15. Pannu, supra note 10.
16. The following Federal Circuit dictum in Pannu (155 F.3d at 1351) should not be read at face value (emphasis added): “All that is required of a joint inventor is that he or she (1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the full dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors wellknown concepts and/or the current state of the art.” If taken at face value and out of context, this statement might be interpreted as a statement that a significant contribution to reduction to practice can substitute for a significant contribution to the conception. Such has never been the law, and neither the context of Pannu nor the cases cited by the Pannu court suggest that the court intended the statement to be so read. The authors do not understand the intended meaning of the statement, and can only suggest that it may represent a typographical error or an editing oversight.
17. Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
18. Stern v. Tr. of Columbia Univ., 434 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that a medical student who simply carried out experiments that the professor suggested did not contribute to conception of the invention); see also, Burroughs, supra note 2.
19. Bd. of Educ. ex rel. Bd. of Trustees of Fla. State Univ. v. Am. Bioscience Inc., 333 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
20. Pannu, supra note 10 at 1351; see also Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary v. Novartis Ophthalmics Inc., 199 Fed. Appx. 960, 964, 2006 WL 2860587, 4 (Fed. Cir. 2006), in which a doctor claimed that he was a co-inventor because he suggested to the named inventors that the upper limit of their range for the claimed irradiance range should be 900mW/cm (not 1200mW/cm). The court found that his contribution to conception was not sufficiently significant, because his suggested limit was contained within the previously conceived broader range.
21. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
22. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that attendance at “brain-storming sessions” was insufficient evidence to prove contribution to conception); Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc., 106 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
23. Idacon Inc. v. Central Forest Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1079 (E.D. Okla. 1986).
24. Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
27. See Chou v. Univ. of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
28. In Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, 321 F.3d 1111 (Fed.Cir.2003), a faculty staff member without an employment contract was bound by an implied contract from the university’s patent policy, which was contained in the Faculty Handbook, to assign all inventions to the university. Similarly, in Univ. of W. Va. Bd. of Tr. v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court concluded that a graduate student was obligated to assign an invention to the university under its policy that provides the university owns all inventions made by university personnel or made with substantial use of university resources.
29. Chou, supra note 27 (finding that a university’s patent policy obligated a graduate student to assign her inventions to the university even though she never signed a contract mandating such an assignment).
30. Perseptive Biosystems Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech Inc., 225 F.3d 1315, 56 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
31. Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. U.S., 514 F.2d 1041 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
32. Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 119 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

References: v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.