[Patentpractice] Patent lawyer as inventor on client's application?
Rick Neifeld
richardneifeld at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 13:43:15 UTC 2024
I am not going to take a position on the good versus bad issue of an
attorney naming themselves as an inventor along with their client-inventor
in the abstract, that is, lacking a specific fact pattern.
I do point out, however, an issue of law related to this discussion. Which
is that the law of long ago regarding naming of inventors, under which some
of the cases dealing with inventorship arose, like *Stark*, is not the law
of today. Paraphrasing from Matal's famous article memorializing the
legislative history of the AIA, part II, page 643-644, subsection "F. AIA
§ 20: Technical Amendments and Repeal of Deceptive-Intent Restrictions,"
theAIA abrogated all of the limitations on correcting an originally named
inventorship that was incorrect due to "deceptive-intent." The current
versions of both 116 and 256 (inventorship sections) authorize the Director
and the Courts, respectively, to correct "error" in inventorship. And in
2020, the Federal Circuit held that "error," within the meaning of 256,
simply meant incorrect, which included incorrectness resulting from
"deceptive intention." *See Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.*,
2019-2015, 2019-2387, 972 F. 3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 8/28/2020).
Rick
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Boundy via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> Let me stress that. As far as I know, there are no countervailing
> benefits to be had or risks avoided by naming the agent/attorney as
> inventor. It's 100% downside. Don't do it.
>
> Another experience, I was not directly involved in the case, but I was
> in-house counsel at eSpeed during appeal phase.
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11175138575348740529 (then
> look at the D Delaware cases). The problem was that the lawyers (Fish &
> Neave) mixed up who was wearing which hat, between inventors, company
> management, and the lawyers. That metastasized into a comprehensive
> subject matter waiver. And because of that, a tiny little document was
> produced, and that turned into inequitable conduct, and losing the case.
> eSpeed had had a monopoly in its market. And then it didn't.
>
> It's REALLY important to understand role pigeonholes or information
> compartmentalization, and keep everybody in their pigeonholes.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 6:22 AM David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree with Judith and Carl. It's a MISTAKE, a
>> potentially-catastrophic mistake with no upside, for any lawyer to name
>> him/herself as an inventor, in-house or outside. You're almost
>> guaranteeing a hole in the privilege, and potentially a subject matter
>> waiver. Back in my litigator days, one of my little specialties was
>> depositions of attorneys. If you have a witness that's a fact witness or
>> some issues, and the attorney for others, oh man what a tasty target rich
>> environment. DON'T DO IT.
>>
>> You'll find my name on some of my early patents, but not after I sat as
>> guest of honor or a couple depositions by Cravath, Kirkland & Ellis, and
>> similar firms, and realized how many of my defense counsel's objections
>> would not be possible if I had been a named inventor.
>>
>> I disagree with David Hricik. His paper
>> https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol55/iss2/4/ proceeds
>> from these two sentences:
>>
>> 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.
>> The Federal Circuit was wrong.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> This is not a close call. Just don't.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 11:19 PM Judith S via Patentpractice <
>> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that as outside counsel you should never name yourself as an
>>> inventor for a patent you wrote.
>>>
>>> But I've had more than one in-house counsel who contributed to the
>>> invention when we were discussing it in committee. I think that's not a
>>> big issue, if in-house counsel becomes an inventor.
>>>
>>> Judith
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:40 PM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice <
>>> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’d also question whether the patent attorney is truly a “joint”
>>>> inventor, i.e., worked in ‘collaboration’, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imho, patent attorneys should never *write themselves in* as an
>>>> inventor. After all, it is our job to write what the inventors
>>>> envision is their invention, not what we think the inventors want to invent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a patent attorney has a question as to whether a particular
>>>> embodiment/application/combination is contemplated by the inventors and
>>>> should therefore be included as a claim, the patent attorney should ask as
>>>> the inventors a *leading* question, e.g., Do you envision that this
>>>> could be … ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes they say something that’s a great idea or yes, that’s how it
>>>> could be implemented… I then correct them and say it is what I
>>>> understood from their own disclosure and/or I didn’t know whether it would
>>>> work or not which is why I asked, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>>>>
>>>> *canady + lortz** LLP* <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 1050 30th Street, NW
>>>>
>>>> Washington, DC 20007
>>>>
>>>> T: 202.486.8020
>>>>
>>>> F: 202.540.8020
>>>>
>>>> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>>>>
>>>> www.canadylortz.com
>>>>
>>>> Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or on behalf of
>>>> a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
>>>> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information
>>>> that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally
>>>> exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you may
>>>> not read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.
>>>> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>>>> immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *David Boundy via Patentpractice
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2024 1:52 PM
>>>> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
>>>> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
>>>> *Cc:* David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Patent lawyer as inventor on client's
>>>> application?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view is that you should not name yourself inventor without a Really
>>>> Good Reason. Here are the reasons that you should not name yourself as
>>>> inventor:
>>>>
>>>> ● If you are merely the attorney, not the inventor, you are unlikely
>>>> to be called for deposition—attorneys generally don’t get deposed unless
>>>> there’s some smell of inequitable conduct in the air first.[1]
>>>> <#m_1463544434541552757_m_-4972033052347162407_m_-8700340141342876121_m_-6441156188502376828__ftn1>
>>>> However, if you are a named inventor, you *will* be deposed. And once
>>>> you’re in the hot seat in your role as inventor, the scope of questions
>>>> that you can be asked has little bound, including “fishing expedition”
>>>> questions for inequitable conduct that couldn’t be asked if you weren’t
>>>> already there.[2]
>>>> <#m_1463544434541552757_m_-4972033052347162407_m_-8700340141342876121_m_-6441156188502376828__ftn2>
>>>>
>>>> ● When a statement of fact made solely as *attorney argument* is
>>>> erroneous without intent, it’s not inequitable conduct.[3]
>>>> <#m_1463544434541552757_m_-4972033052347162407_m_-8700340141342876121_m_-6441156188502376828__ftn3>
>>>> However, if you are the inventor, the same argument could be an *inventor’s
>>>> statement*, and that statement might be evaluated for inequitable
>>>> conduct on a far different standard.
>>>>
>>>> ● As a person that is likely to become a witness, you are
>>>> disqualified from representing the client in any litigation. The
>>>> disqualification may extend to your firm.
>>>>
>>>> While the Federal Circuit has not explicitly blessed the practice, it
>>>> has at least told district courts not to invalidate such patents under old
>>>> § 102(f) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless … he did not
>>>> himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.”), nor to correct
>>>> inventorship under § 256:[4]
>>>> <#m_1463544434541552757_m_-4972033052347162407_m_-8700340141342876121_m_-6441156188502376828__ftn1>
>>>>
>>>> … 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 his inventorship as a result of
>>>> representing his client. 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 the patent attorney.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> [1] *Ring Plus Inc v Cingular Wireless Corp.*, 614 F.3d
>>>> 1354, ___, 6 USPQ2d 1022, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2010) (material misstatement in
>>>> Background was material to inequitable conduct, but did not establish
>>>> intent to deceive); Taltech Ltd v Esquel Ents Ltd., 604 F3d 1324, ___, 95
>>>> USPQ2d 1257, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2010) (inequitable conduct & atty fees in
>>>> undisclosed prior art, atty misstatement; intent inferred from circumstance
>>>> & lack evidence of good faith).
>>>>
>>>> [2] Exergen Corp v Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F3d 1312,
>>>> ___, 91 USPQ2d 1656, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (FRCP 9(b) pleading of
>>>> inequitable conduct reqs specific who, what, when, where and how, including
>>>> facts implying intent).
>>>>
>>>> [3] *Intirtool Ltd v Texar Corp.*, 369 F3d 1289, ___, 70
>>>> USPQ2d 1780, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2004) (inequitable conduct of faulty
>>>> prosecution arguments); *Norian Corp v Stryker Corp.*, 363 F3d 1321,
>>>> 70 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (inequitable conduct of faulty prosecution
>>>> arguments); *CFMT Inc v Yieldup Int’l Corp.*, 349 F3d 1333, ___, 68
>>>> USPQ2d 1940, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2003) (inequitable conduct of faulty
>>>> prosecution arguments); *Transonic Systems Inc v Non-Invasive Medical
>>>> Technologies Corp.*, 75 Fed.Appx. 765 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (unpublished)
>>>> (inequitable conduct of faulty prosecution arguments); *Gambro Lundia
>>>> AB v Baxter Healthcare Corp*, 110 F3d 1573, ___, 42 USPQ2d 1378, ___
>>>> (Fed. Cir. 1997).
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> [4] *Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.*, 216 F.3d 1372,
>>>> 1382, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 1:40 PM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <
>>>> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have had this happen half a dozen times over the years. I send the
>>>> standard email "here are the claims, please look at them and tell me if we
>>>> have named all of the inventors" and next thing you know, I am told I am a
>>>> co-inventor.
>>>>
>>>> When this happens, I simply sign a declaration and asssignment, record
>>>> the assignment, and give it no further thought.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I suppose one could concoct situations where (for example) a
>>>> malfeasant patent attorney could intentionally slip a "not" into the
>>>> assignment, or could intentionally do something or another during
>>>> prosecution that would somehow favor the attorney. To the extent that one
>>>> decides that such risks would need to be somehow addressed, yes one cannot
>>>> imagine any approach other than transferring everything about the case
>>>> (including the assignment task) to separate counsel.
>>>>
>>>> One imagines the client would get stuck paying lots of money to new
>>>> counsel for them to spend the time needed gain familiarity with the file.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I have sort of assumed that if I can be trusted not to screw
>>>> over the client in the handling of the file in general (before I was
>>>> identified as a co-inventor), I ought to be able to be trusted not to screw
>>>> over the client in the remaining tasks. But you raise valid questions that
>>>> I have never thought about.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2024 1:03 PM, Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What issues / concerns are there with a patent attorney being named an
>>>> inventor on their client's patent application?
>>>>
>>>> Assume that the attorney will assign all rights in the invention to the
>>>> client/applicant, should the attorney advise them to have someone else
>>>> handle the assignment?
>>>>
>>>> Are there privilege issues? (In a communication with the client, who
>>>> are you? Attorney or co-inventor?)
>>>>
>>>> Does the patent attorney have to advise the PTO? Is there a conflict
>>>> of any sort?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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>
>>>> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>>>>
>>>> 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.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
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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>
>> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>>
>> 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.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>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> 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.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
>
--
Best regards
Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D.
Neifeld IP Law PLLC
9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032
Mobile: 7034470727
Email: RichardNeifeld at gmail.com;
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241210/4fa09c53/attachment.html>
More information about the Patentpractice
mailing list