<div dir="ltr"><div>I agree with Dan, to the extent that <i>Solomon</i> <b>doesn't</b> say an attorney can never be an inventor.</div><div><br></div><div>But Solomon <b>does</b> say that the attorney never <i><b>has</b></i> to be named an inventor.</div><div><br></div><div>My point: legally, it's optional to go either way. It's just that one of the two options is all downside no upside.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:16\u202fAM Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><img width="1" height="1" src="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/op/iio4FjPJlqfTIngF4xICuAOHkyeaOBxq6HS9B9lCSi4IVa3rDEgDHgkEMfiP0p_wZMYJtz8OyawM1Efe-ZWRlTci83x8Ki4nbtKkHPUdHGksA6xxeJO3b4vIKOLExN9wLTThiugr5l1rpBf0qY8sQUiCKSvjzSSCUUSN7aoAaGk8CGzG2lc4H7BnzVV8CH4bkDoFhO5sKI6YO_qakmUJi3EaMBcjWBWheBq6"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I disagree with David H's characterization of <i>Solomon</i>. The case in question doesn't effectively say "that as a matter of law, practitioners can never be inventors.", as David H. asserts. Here's the relevant paragraph, from near the end of <i>Solomon</i>:</div><div><br></div><div></div><div>"As for the suggestion that Solomon's attorney might be the true inventor, we regard that argument as misguided. An attorney's professional responsibility is to assist his or her client in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed. 1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark] Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney's role is a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the proper role of a patent attorney. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Kimberly-Clark's section 102(f) invalidity defense. We therefore need not assess the remaining evidence presented by Kimberly-Clark, or reach the parties' arguments relating to<span> </span><a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/BEhXxEdT6kPiaPsn7OGMWAbUwLhgvzAKvz4sSwr1BP4yrp8ZjnCktOm_5pg_jS6rOHbVFtoVMkl7Y-IiKmx8yua6qkHDqPRq6mqACgs_AjrJTaKLO84NB-hX6z1sA9FryNlQ5bLx2sjrkF9GuqwYPS5i1cCzIR22HJHUbLrV7LukqOLWcvjiX7y5CSGT81wGOqA8gUWZw1ofYDDMkdeZlbg1QlUwzOMIOfn54HYfWcCnHVlTkP5bl8m26R-w_FraABYPdH2QhStVF1iffAIcBoRULQi7ntf3FR3ztQZE9zwQd-cd7PX9m-2LzM7tAZwTvyTNvfuE9eKFBU75J7Ips3HQEXw0yKnBvPSSv3e1leo2B1kE6HcDHbec7QORN482ZA5Hb6vKASjp6fdUfBWopErFAThJoJ0gdYSmt-dux6RLkqUsyVlCcCwuzGwvMAQqtlRUMii0VSqk7nG13WHPty2vBR50qTB4zEiFOhV-WtL2NuT5VWphnaTw-8cTQx_F9JAnpppXLb4kO5nLCVI" style="box-sizing:border-box;color:rgb(0,90,170);text-decoration:none;background-color:transparent" target="_blank">35 U.S.C. § 256</a>."<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:"IBM Plex Sans","Helvetica Neue",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><i style="box-sizing:border-box">Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.</i>, 216 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000)</p></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>I don't read that as precluding a practitioner from being an inventor. In Solomon, the accused infringer suggested that the inventor had not actually conceived of the claimed invention (because of delta between what the inventor said she had invented and what the spec and claims said), and that therefore someone else must have conceived of the claimed invention and that that someone might have been the patent attorney. All the court said was, <i>We're not going to presume that a perceived or asserted discrepancy between (a) what </i>
<span><i>in deposition </i></span>
<i>the inventor said she invented and (b) what was described and claimed, is due to a contribution from the patent attorney, because we don't presume it's the patent attorney's job to invent and we presume that patent attorneys don't invent in the course of their work</i>. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Several years ago I was asked to assist an Israeli patent practitioner who had listed himself as an inventor (alongside the main inventors) on a PCT application (and had assigned all his rights, at no extra charge, to the applicant). The applicant had recently hired a new patent manager who (unwisely) moved the still-pending PCT to a different firm, where one of the partners then tried to get the original practitioner to confirm in writing that he should be removed from the listing of inventors. Apart from the new guy being wrong on the law and the facts, it was also in my view unwise: once the original practitioner's name was on the published PCT as an inventor, taking it off would only invite additional scrutiny down the road. But it did give the new firm a chance to bill the applicant for unnecessary work, and make the applicant's patent manager feel like he had done something right by moving the file. I wrote about this case <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/nYvYQ2MC_5A2nrbXGGhGeauvBJ8G2Z2LGvUWBsiXEE7T8QfX08zdgjSajX8_bfX-7Q1sw9eYztFEqu1CJKI5IReuezDr3pqkAlGqto4eI16-rp922F712OMC-fIMSr13-q0XTMTMf3STih1IfVqQrFpUrWVicktJXohM-fabO_VGujT-M2XjYzz5m8wYgWhxrdN8-FDUYmqIjieNHzucB1va5RIbb6D0-FCi25PhmHAoLorSc8eft6gjzYMUT1pLloZWTBr0nL7_qQClLIQ4QvLGNDcmnVQlId84dDiJhG7ccZMsyEhZgQQ2tRcgUi921RYsM6PQ3yg-nE8uPzOPpQI6ECuoLFbC0MBOYdUqikwJPfOr1nfniqPH0JxcW_4vuO7ae91F8FSPj9qD7J6pWv3whP8Tme3byAN65655GusDO6k" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/uU1LX2t3h-vp032qvw2OunVjM-GSZyUTq3vSuA_8lOEilnD6xjT8A6B3WieTZdQaTw26SxgZ1Zh1nYul524jdzKoUld2qlN7uCOBweoENsiFvBHaGZG4ztHj8PeZaUhC30lPJVwaXbnkcEKQkMKJscZMUID5adMMMA7wZU31PRAoXrgvK1RppWY3lx3YG0nJnjeLdwXCMaJ9LfGCifJqRFmFc56nihrlRd6ZkOtPM0B6CIc5cutipjgztcVdZBJE4uUAzEobtUXoOvbfFKiVe3gUkLTUwTebT1inJv-mpvI9LzZuO9uUMpbO3MANrk15y4Hn0s4natB7DMCLeJuoh4PKduNn9KCxHumS5lPngstl16nIhMruwKLtZ_KN-XMJrybV90hQrFeCfA_YDqVrC6UD-_Z90Qgelo2M8FUsuO76SPo" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/Wdjk7cLuoYo9vjb-50qFYZfwgIn-dng5wF6oGCKXI-bWQOm4eJlNAyKb4TFCLDv8jFWgq4aneidGJQ34eCz7d2puMNN44nyQ_K6OG9X7y078qPbdtgOSUOR9dO3RKdGpeylgFMsSBqlC2fE93GhOS2Fm6CwNK-XApU6HOoRd51mZyQF_qpG7RMK3rDTLuhkBf5ZNtpYXIqQGElhxA3MsmnXm3_f4t7Ir2ngl0Q52d3oiQP67whrKYuvb05wansxpbFv_imSkqaKvMeorJ1CBnWUxxtTKyNzjNgLyBOgmN7eDT3W08b73EBIRkHIhfIf0eqHcL1Oyye38EUaG6EBCVBGYO_NRCPl4k3KVz7bEj-YsL5kXSMNUjWGfgx079dNp_ILIMxglQhs5Vp-tSBCXZs2uAisIW4xat4AgLDcYus4JJXE" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/BJmhPwsD07ZPeejBmf_rcg6sWkc1LKl8YZOu7RlW9cvQNEpQcvlGkJQtslDkcVuTBWXaceNfb4cjWXgNfjS6ceE3_elIgzklTA_k4BZAzFWlAI1ZMQld9vrwjmcPcMZVAqKupgojqv2cf_7SPmnTINhnRGvJgaxkNFtEiESuP6FoemseAL9Km2sTbdIKOWzW1HamDRxAmtvu7R38lfEVzSjbx9QlOIaJFx9kohjw22SFtoKF2hRhUO5ofAv7q057Rh90RZRY6a3f1rrRKYgB5iW_-youwpK9ZpA2o8whz_SFNEmz37Fv9IvoM9R_Q9EhU9rMO0Br8h_PdcT58f14KOze8ZeWqmzcJKRFtOM6_mupi3BWgoXg1A7MJkopbPEUwfBwX0x7syE5tMSI4Jq9okrATv2khzmHM7SSdcXz3CktFYtQfjd-DbNWDQFnsg" target="_blank">here</a>.</div></div></div></div></span></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 1:26\u202fPM David Boundy via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><br></div><div>I disagree with David Hricik. His paper <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/tA75NHEjd6V48xUNCgV9k_tlYdSDWDLyNi6CR8fEUgAmX8eIyr0oITUDuYitz6rwIYFWOvp4hQQ_TdgA-cTyvorOubC_Aqvg8lJxO6zp9lUc52bIzHYlBx8LhJri46sM29J98FhfIvrKN_3E_7g_qOSzK-s7SzeLbR_QH2bU2oj4mbQ3Xixf_6IO6ljomer2VsZF6iVp3KmlZ5UdzZl5DLzwUb-1EiecIpNmO6KeUmdzFmfWT8Yte9taff7hwFdKXCOJKlOfrPTWW3po-tWQSEgyrv42ghrbaUhWtjXWDagINGv0xX-CjX6zkCzTMtu31-U9-v-HlZZHuveKL5fw" target="_blank">https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol55/iss2/4/</a> proceeds from these two sentences:</div><div><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px">On the one occasion the Federal Circuit did address this issue, ... the court stated that as a matter of law, practitioners can never be inventors. <br></div><div style="margin-left:40px">The Federal Circuit was wrong.</div><div><br></div><div>That's not the way it works. When a panel majority of people with black robes, presidential appointments, and Senate Confirmations say that it is fine -- no error, no statutory violation, just fine -- to not name lawyer as inventor, well, that's the law.</div><div><br></div><div>This is not a close call. Just don't.<br></div></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10pt"><font size="2"><b><span><span><span><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><font size="2"><b><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <img alt="Cambridge Technology Law LLC" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/keynectup/PROFILE/9b92f0cd-ecec-44c8-8932-60e8dc63709f/thumbnail.jpg?1455027242552" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; outline: 0px;" height="96" border="0" width="96"><br></a></b></font></p><font size="2"><b>
</b><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property
strategists</span></a></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p><b>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:700">David Boundy</span></a></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span></span></span></p></b></font><p></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><a href="mailto:dboundy@cambridgetechlaw.com" target="_blank">DBoundy@cambridgetechlaw.com</a> / <a href="tel:%2B1%206464729737" value="+16464729737" target="_blank">+1 646.472.9737</a></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><span style="font-weight:700">Cambridge Technology Law LLC</span></span><br>686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge MA 02139<br><a href="http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com" target="_blank">http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy</a><br></span></p>mailing address<div>PO Box 590638<br></div><div>Newton MA 02459<br></div></div></div><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""><br>This communication is
a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.<span> </span>Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.<span> </span>Any legal, business or tax information
contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not
intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute
for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse
consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise
the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly
delete it.</span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>