<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/3/2025 2:35 PM, Scott Nielson via
Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR11MB657546587FD363DB4FC8F7B4B0152@SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="elementToProof">
Thanks for those who responded in this thread. However, I'm
curious what should be done in the following scenarios:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Scenario 1</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
1. US provisional is filed listing a single corporate applicant.</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
2. The inventors have not signed an assignment to the applicant
by the one-year date and it is not possible to get a signed
assignment by the one-year date. </div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Who should be listed as the applicant(s) on the PCT application?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Step 1. Find out in which Designated Offices the client will
want to pursue patent protection from this US provisional.</p>
<p>Step 2. Present the fact pattern to competent counsel in each of
those geographic locations. Receive their advice as to whom to
list as applicant. Print out the advice on paper.</p>
<p>Step 3. In ePCT, click around as necessary to specify the
applicant list individually for each of the patent offices. Carry
this out in such a way as to comply with the advice received in
step 2.</p>
<p>So for example the advice for patent office A might be "pick the
single corporate applicant" in which case for patent office A,
specify that the applicant is the single corporate applicant. In
contrast maybe the advice for patent office B might be "specify
that the applicant list is the same as the inventor list" in which
case for patent office A, specify that the applicant list is the
inventor list.</p>
<p>One mistake to avoid is assuming, incorrectly, that you are
somehow charged with using the exact same applicant list across
all designated Offices.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR11MB657546587FD363DB4FC8F7B4B0152@SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Scenario 2</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<span>1. </span><span>US provisional is filed listing a single
corporate applicant.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<span>2. Some of the inventors signed an assignment and some
didn't, and it is not possible to get a signed assignment from
the non-signers before the one-year date.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<span>Who should be listed as the applicant(s) on the PCT
application?</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<span><br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
Follow same procedure as is specified above for Scenario 1.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR11MB657546587FD363DB4FC8F7B4B0152@SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="elementToProof"><span>
</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Will the answer depend on the law/rules of each country? For
example, the rules in the U.S. are clear that all entities that
have an ownership interest in the application must be named as
applicants. This means that if the inventors in either
application are not under an obligation to assign their rights,
then they should be listed as applicants for purposes of the
U.S.</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
In the scenarios above, is the best practice to name any
inventor who has not signed an assignment agreement as an
applicant on the PCT application, even if they are under an
obligation to assign (under the theory that other countries may
not have a similar provision as the U.S. for inventors who are
under an obligation to assign)?</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>Scott Nielson</b></div>
<div id="Signature" class="elementToProof">
<p><span>801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<hr>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><span><b>From:</b> Patentpractice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a> on behalf of
Rick Neifeld via Patentpractice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 20, 2024 8:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Rick Neifeld <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richardneifeld@gmail.com"><richardneifeld@gmail.com></a>; For
patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
advice. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] For a provisional
application, difficulty getting one inventor's signature</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">Thank you, Carl. However, I direct
readers to the entire section " VI. SECURING THE RIGHT OF
PRIORITY (ROP)" in my paper. This is because entire section
shows that a written assignment of a priority document executed
AFTER a PCT application is on file is insufficient to secure the
ROP to the priority document. And the right to prove "equitable
or beneficial" title, see subsection VI.J, even if one can do
so, is not universally recognized. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 3:41\u202fAM Carl Oppedahl <<a
href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"
id="OWAd20c1e23-1b2e-394b-5efd-d6062f1eafe9"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">carl@oppedahl.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Thank you Rick for posting. Yes, folks, Rick is exactly
right about this. See the webinar that I presented ten days
ago (
<a href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/pct-webinars/"
id="OWA318b1f22-b571-86a9-11d4-3ed9049133a8"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-auth="Verified" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://blog.oppedahl.com/pct-webinars/</a> ) where I
discussed Rick's point in some detail. Part of what Rick is
getting at is highlighted by PCT Declaration Number 2,
discussed at slides 23-38 (available free of charge at that
page). A raw recording of the webinar is available free of
charge (thanks to WIPO) at that web page.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 12/19/2024 10:52 PM, Rick Neifeld wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>"put off the fight to get the fifth until it's a
nonprovisional and/or PCT." Good luck proving
the corporate applicant on the PCT is entitled the Paris
priority date, lacking an assignment executed BEFORE the PCT
filing date. Strongly suggest you read <b><a
href="https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/Avoiding%20Failed%20Patent%20Application%20Filings,%202023%20Paper.pdf"
id="OWA130190fe-3636-404a-88ab-663626965446"
class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="Verified"
moz-do-not-send="true">Avoiding Failed Patent
Application Filings, 2023 Paper, Submitted for the NAPP
annual meeting July 19, 2023</a>" Rick Neifeld, July 19,
2023., section
</b>VI.D. The All Applicants Rule. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rick</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 2:21\u202fPM Carl Oppedahl via
Patentpractice <<a
href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"
id="OWAebdbc2ce-7937-6f98-94c3-2a1bd0a64ff0"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Keep in mind you need to record within three months.
See
<a
href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/best-practice-recording-us-patent-assignments/"
id="OWAcc77bcc7-03b0-fc1c-f22c-0ee109783541"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-auth="Verified" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://blog.oppedahl.com/best-practice-recording-us-patent-assignments/</a> .
So I would not foot-drag the recordation, especially
given that you don't have to pay any government fee to
accomplish the recordation. </p>
<p>In the old days when we had to pay a government fee to
record patent assignments, I know that many of us would
play a game of chicken, aging the first four assignments,
hoping against all hope that the fifth inventor would
cough up a signature within three months of the earliest
execution by the four earlier signers. All to scrimp and
save to avoid paying an extra $25. But that fee is gone
so that eliminates any good reason to foot-drag the
recordations.</p>
<p>I figure the longer one waits to extract a signature from
an inventor, the greater the period of exposure to
problems like the inventor getting run over by a truck or
worse.</p>
<p>Sometimes I have run into situations where the
non-provisional is admittedly non-identical to the
provisional, and I realize that to cover the situation
fully I would need two assignments -- one for the
provisional and a second for the non-provisional. And yes
you might say "assume for sake of discussion that I do
manage to extract a signature from the inventor for the
non-provisional, then surely that means I can forgive
myself for having failed to get that inventor to sign the
earlier assignment for the provisional."</p>
<p>Except at least in my own practice, every single time
that I have ever played this game (relying on a signature
for the non-provisional as the excuse for ducking the
pursuit of the signature for the provisional), I have
gotten burned. Every single time! The ways that I have
gotten burned when I play this game have fallen into
several categories:</p>
<ul>
<li>I run afoul of Article 4 of Paris, risking a failure
to comply with SAOSIT.</li>
<li>The inventor starts smelling blood in the water,
because maybe the invention must be really valuable
given the second patent filing, and so the inventor
starts holding the signature ransom.</li>
<li>The inventor gets run over by a truck.</li>
<li>The inventor has a last day of work and is less
cooperative than before.</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 12/19/2024 12:04 PM, David Boundy via Patentpractice
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>I am nine months into my provisional year. I have
assignment from four of five inventors. The fifth?
Not hostile, but he's just a contractor, no real loyalty
to the client. Ignores emails requesting signature.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If I just record the assignment of four inventors,
and put off the fight to get the fifth until it's a
nonprovisional and/or PCT, I guess I'm running a risk
that he won't sign that either. But is there any
greater consequence to lacking the signature if I
wait? I am just out of vinegar to fight with this guy,
and I want to wait to have the fight until its a
nonprovisional.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
--</div>
<p><a
href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy"
id="OWAdf7abab0-49eb-ab5a-cb63-cc685070e121"
class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="Verified"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img width="73" height="92"
moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></p>
<p><b>David Boundy </b>| Partner | Potomac Law Group,
PLLC</p>
<p>P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459</p>
<p>Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707</p>
<p><u><a href="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com"
id="OWAbe88c33c-95c7-0398-df67-50ccfe55d838"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
title="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">dboundy@potomaclaw.com</a></u> |
<u><a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com/"
id="OWA4fdba0c1-9c74-acdd-77c2-bbbc87243e91"
class="OWAAutoLink"
title="http://www.potomaclaw.com/"
data-auth="Verified" moz-do-not-send="true">www.potomaclaw.com</a></u></p>
<p><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470"
id="OWAfa7e6782-0318-7b77-ab00-4c573cc9f51b"
class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="Verified"
moz-do-not-send="true">Articles at
http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a></p>
<p><a
href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?"
id="OWA6583ab15-ed6b-b9b6-2b50-38720249bec9"
class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="Verified"
moz-do-not-send="true">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</a></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<div>--<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"
id="OWAa97872c5-d64c-ec95-54a7-5277b5c70058"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com"
id="OWAd422728f-b764-06f1-07cf-3b88d901a33f"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
data-auth="Verified" moz-do-not-send="true">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>