Opinion ID: 181546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Correction of Inventorship for the '427 and '724 Patents

Text: Inventorship is a question of law we review without deference. Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed.Cir.1998). Because the inventors named on the issued patent are presumed to be correct, a person seeking to add his name must meet the heavy burden of proving its case by clear and convincing evidence. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.Cir. 2004). A joint inventor must contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention [and] make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention. Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A. Inc., 558 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir. 2009); see also Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed.Cir.1997). Here, Shum's correction of inventorship claims for both patents turn on the question of Shum's contribution to the idea of adding a second pair of legs to the flexure described in other claims of those respective patents. We agree with the district court that the evidence Shum cites from March 1997 does not show a second pair of legs, while the later drawings and evidence from June 1997 are past the point of conception. The district court correctly granted post-verdict JMOL with respect to claim 1 of the '724 patent and claim 5 of the '427 patent.