<div dir="ltr"><div>"If there was no assignment from A1 to A2, what would be different regarding the PCT filing?" - If no assignment before filing of the PCT, then the PCT would have failed to comply with the successor in title provisions of Paris article 4. </div><div><br></div><div>"They have a corporate assignment from A1 to A2 for the India application." - Is there an unbroken chain of title under the applicable choice of laws provision? Does Indian law vest ownership in a corporate entity disrespecting natural law rights, if any, of the inventors? Did the inventors assign in writing the first application to A1, and did the other inventors assign from the second application to A2?</div><div><br></div><div>Is the subject of any claim not supported entirely by a single priority application? If not, then you have an issue. </div><div><br></div><div>Bodenhousen does not address the question whether Paris 4A(1)'s "one" of the countries of the Union has preclusive effect. And I am not aware of any case raising that issue regarding entitlement to Paris priority.</div><div><br></div><div>Rick</div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 8:28\u202fAM Ryan Gleitz via Pct <<a href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com">pct@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 class="msg1593810336438491051">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_1593810336438491051WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all, I\u2019d appreciate any insights into or pitfalls to avoid in this scenario:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Applicant A1 files a priority founding application in India.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Applicant A2 files a priority founding application in US on the same day.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They have different inventors but related subject matter.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They want to combine specs into a single PCT filed by Applicant A2. They have a corporate assignment from A1 to A2 for the India application.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does anyone know of anything I should to now to avoid trouble at PCT and/or national stage?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there was no assignment from A1 to A2, what would be different regarding the PCT filing?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Pct mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
Click here to unsubscribe: <a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Best regards</div><div>Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D. <br></div><div>Neifeld IP Law PLLC<br></div><div>9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032</div><div>Mobile: 7034470727<br></div><div>Email: <a href="mailto:RichardNeifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank">RichardNeifeld@gmail.com</a>; <br></div><div>This
is NOT a confidential and privileged communication. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this email and notify the sender you
have done so.<br></div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div>