[Patentpractice] Assignment of US National Phase of foreign-origin PCT

Thu Aug 22 23:16:04 UTC 2024

e-notarization is great.

To answer your other questions, assume the inventor has gone hostile.  Can
you prove up the signature, OVER OPPOSITION?   If so do anything you want.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 3:48 PM Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> HI David –  while we're on this subject, I did have a rhetorical question
> I've always wondered about.
>
> How does a written-digital signature differ from an ink signature in that
> respect? (especially one that's scanned in ... and you may never get the
> original because the client / inventor / somebody never gets around to
> sending it). For example, suppose all you have is a scan of an original –
> how do you prove that it wasn't forged?
>
> With DocuSign, if you also require 2FA (like a pin from the inventor's
> cellphone), wouldn't that provide some better evidence? Would the shape of
> the signature be more convincing in scanned vs e-signed? Even with the
> original, it could be forged as well (especially the way so many people
> sign...)
>
> Of course, no argument that a notarized, inked signature is best. I'm just
> wondering out loud about the cases where the practicalities of getting
> those are challenging.
>
> Another can of worms – e-notarization (e.g., Texas has a special level of
> authorization for notaries to e-notarize)? Any better than ink signature?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on
> behalf of David Boundy via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:02 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>; For patent practitioners.
> This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Assignment of US National Phase of
> foreign-origin PCT
>
> Another thing to never do -- electronic signatures.  An electronic
> signature is no better -- no, it's worse -- than a plain old ink
> signature.  Remember that if a signature isn't notarized, the burden is on
> the patent owner to prove up authenticity of the signature.  So say the
> inventor goes to work for a competitor, and all you've got is a Docusign
> signature.  The inventor sure isn't going to testify "Oh yeah, I remember
> Docusigning that.   It's genuine."  No.  You're going to have to roll this
> stone up every inch of the hill all by yourself.  The only real argument or
> verification you've got is an IP address.  Yeah right.  Suppose there's one
> IP address for the whole building, or that the building has a floating IP
> address that changes day to day.  How ya gonna prove that the signature
> wasn't forged by the boss who was under the gun to get some patent filing
> metric?
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 9:20 AM David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The one thing to NEVER do -- the US PTO used to have a form assignment.
> It was flamboyantly incompetent -- it didn't include necessary magic words
> for the U.S., and it granted a license to use to the attorney!   If the
> assignment you're using still has the language "use and behoof" and "for
> use of representatives" you're creating trouble!
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 9:05 AM Ed Welch via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps WIPO should task itself with creating a “universal” assignment,
> which endeavors to address the critical elements/requirements of the major
> countries, and then seeks adoption of that assignment document by its
> member countries.  Those that accept it are bound to it, at least with
> respect to an International PCT patent application and its national phase
> siblings; regardless of conflicting national language.  The form would not
> be a requirement, but an option; whereby a US originated case may not adopt
> its use to account for state laws.  Maybe I’m being too simplistic!
>
>
>
> Ed Welch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2024 6:23 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Assignment of US National Phase of
> foreign-origin PCT
>
>
>
> Yes I have had such questions from foreign associates a dozen times in the
> past thirty years, and I am always troubled by it.
>
> Indeed think how this kind of project could blow up.  One reason it could
> blow up is that what is often at least implied in such a question is a hope
> that somehow you are smarter than anybody anywhere in the world, because
> you somehow know what ten or twenty sets of "magic words" need to be
> inserted into a proposed Assignment that would make it legally enforceable
> in the whole world, in every country of the world.
>
> We already know this cannot possibly be within the abilities of any
> particular single practitioner, no matter how smart they are.  I am told by
> some European practitioners that one of the requirements for an Assignment
> to work in some European countries is, the document is required to be
> signed not only by the Assignor but also by the Assignee.   I am also told
> that in some European countries, the mere fact of the inventor drawing
> paychecks from an employer might mean the rights are not owned by the
> inventor.  In which case maybe if someone were to stick a would-be
> Assignment under the nose of the inventor to sign might not lead to any
> rights being assigned because the inventor has no rights to assign.
>
> I am told by some Japanese practitioners that in Japan, even if an
> American-style assignment were to be signed by a Japanese inventor, it
> probably does not settle the question of who owns what, because there are
> laws about how much compensation needs to be paid to the inventor.
>
> Just within the US, we have questions that might make for a surprise about
> who owns what, questions that are state-specific within our 50 states.  In
> California there have been cases where it made a difference whether or not
> the inventor was married at the time the invention was made.  I am
> absolutely sure that I lack competency to give legal advice in Louisiana
> not only because I am not admitted to practice there, but because that law
> is based not on US common law but instead is based upon the Napoleonic
> Code.  There is some word "usufruct" that absolutely means something super
> important about property rights in Louisiana (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct#Louisiana ) but that does not
> arise in 48 other states.  Whatever "usufruct" means legally in Louisiana,
> I lack competence to say whether it does or does not apply in any
> particular would-be patent assignment
>
> Think of the Assignments that we have all seen over the years, where the
> drafter of the document larded it with language requiring the hapless
> inventor to make lots of representations and warranties that the inventor
> owned all rights, and was of sound mind, and had consulted counsel, and was
> delivering good title, and conveyed it all to the Assignee.
>
> Think of the Assignments we have seen where the document fails to recite
> any consideration.  Recall that in law school we were taught that depending
> on what jurisdiction we are drafting to meet, maybe it is required to
> recite consideration.  Maybe we need to recite at least One Dollar?  A
> peppercorn?  Think of the Assignments we have seen where the hapless
> inventor is being required to make a party admission that the (unspecified)
> consideration is "good and sufficient".
>
> Now maybe your request from the FA is narrower.  Maybe they are only
> asking you to draft up a document that conveys "the US patent rights" or
> "the US designation from the PCT application".  Even then there are things
> to go wrong.  We have our fifty-states issue for one thing.  And even a
> document which superficially seems to assign only US rights will often have
> some word-creep that sort of purports to assign "the invention set forth
> in" or "the invention", which sounds a lot like assigning "everything"
> regardless of geography.
>
> Sometimes I sort of give up and draft up something that is a mere
> quitclaim deed.  A document which, correctly understood and interpreted,
> amounts to nothing more than "who knows whether or not I have any rights in
> the US, but to the extent that I do, I hereby convey them".  Again is a
> peppercorn enough?  One US dollar?  An unspecified "good and sufficient
> consideration"?
>
> One of the nice anecdotes in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feinman" is the
> place where somebody demanded he sign some patent assignment at Los Alamos,
> and it said he was being paid one dollar, and he said he would only sign if
> he actually were to receive the dollar.  And of course the government
> bureaucracy and paperwork to carry out the payment of the one dollar took
> weeks or months to satisfy.
>
> In the "Oppenheimer" movie there is the half-a-second bit of film, a
> throwaway quick action cut, that shows a fellow slapping away on bongo
> drums shortly after the big test explosion in New Mexico.  That's a true
> story and it was Feinman.
>
> Anyway, yes, I don't even think I could draft a document that I could
> promise would work in all fifty of the United States.  If I don't think I
> could do that, how could I possibly add to the mix the need to deal with
> whatever is different about the law when you get to foreign countries?
>
> I was born in a place in New Mexico that is walking distance from the
> place where that first big test happened.  Thank goodness it was more than
> a decade later than the test.  But occasionally a friend or relative will
> ask whether this geography somehow explains one or another of my
> personality quirks.
>
> On 8/20/2024 7:51 PM, Katherine Koenig via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> A FA has asked me to file the US National Phase application of a PCT
> application (RO/GB, with two GB priority applications).  They’ve also asked
> me to send an Assignment of the US application for signature.
>
>
>
> My brain is hanging up on this for some reason – does it make sense (would
> it be unauthorized practice) for me to send them a US assignment of a US
> patent application, if the applicant and inventor are both in the UK?
> Would the contract be governed by UK law, and therefore I couldn’t prepare
> it for them?  I’ve asked the FA for a copy of any assignment that’s already
> been made, but I’ve so far only received the request to prepare one for the
> US.  If they’re unable to send me prior assignment(s), would a better
> approach be to prepare a confirmatory assignment (but what if I don’t know
> the terms of prior assignment(s))?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Katherine
>
>
>
> Dr. Katherine Koenig
>
> *Registered Patent Attorney*
>
> Koenig IP Works, PLLC
>
> 2208 Mariner Dr.
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
>
> (954) 903-1699
>
> katherine at koenigipworks.com
>
>
>
> *Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy*
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this communication, including any
> attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for
> the use of the individual or entity named above.  If **you are not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, do not read
> it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
> communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies.
> Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
> --
>
> *       [image: Cambridge Technology Law LLC]
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>*
>
> Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> David Boundy
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> DBoundy at cambridgetechlaw.com <dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1
> 646.472.9737 <%2B1%206464729737>
>
> Cambridge Technology Law LLC
> 686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
> http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com <http://www.cambridgetechlaw.com/>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy
> mailing address
> PO Box 590638
> Newton MA   02459
>
> This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication
> intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.
> Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  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.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *       [image: Cambridge Technology Law LLC]
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>*
>
> Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> David Boundy
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> DBoundy at cambridgetechlaw.com <dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1
> 646.472.9737 <%2B1%206464729737>
>
> Cambridge Technology Law LLC
> 686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
> http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com <http://www.cambridgetechlaw.com/>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy
> mailing address
> PO Box 590638
> Newton MA   02459
>
> This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication
> intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.
> Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  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.
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240822/9350adc1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240822/9350adc1/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240822/9350adc1/attachment-0001.jpg>