[Patentpractice] Patent lawyer as inventor on client's application?
Patent Lawyer
patentlawyer995 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 18:08:15 UTC 2024
Ok, if, “[t]he attorney should not have contributed that entirely different innovation,” can the attorney file their own patent application for that “entirely different innovation”?
I know this is pushing the boundaries a bit, but I am sure this kind of thing has happened.
From a public policy point of view, should the “entirely different innovation” just go away or become public domain? The client has the ability to commercialize the product, including the patent attorney’s contribution. The patent attorney does not.
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Reply-To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 12:41 PM
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Richard Straussman <rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Patent lawyer as inventor on client's application?
If the Inventor's answer after trying to get recognition in multiple ways (and not surprisingly, given his background) answered, "Do you envision that this could be … ?" would have been "Heck no. Never in a million years!" Then, in my view, that should have been the end of it. The attorney should not have contributed that entirely different innovation. I agree that would be true inventing and well outside of the attorney's role.
That is in sharp contrast to a circumstance where, for example, a part is linearly moved by a mechanical actuator and the inventor (who knows nothing about electronics) is asked whether a solenoid could be used in place of the mechanical movement, but the attorney knows they are interchangeable and it is a trivial, non-inventive, swap. Irrespective of what the inventor says, I would include the solenoid, or state something like, "while the linear actuator is shown as a mechanical device, the important aspect is the linear movement, not the device used to supply it, so it is to be appreciated that suitable electronic or other devices that can provide the same linear movement can alternatively be used."
Richard Straussman
Senior Counsel
Registered Patent Attorney
Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weitzman Law Offices, LLC
Intellectual Property Law
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
Roseland, NJ 07068
direct line 973.403.9943
main 973.403.9940
fax 973.403.9944
e-mail rstraussman at weitzmanip.com<mailto:rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>
http://www.weitzmanip.com<http://www.weitzmanip.com/>
On 12/10/2024 12:25 PM, Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice wrote:
Thanks all for the responses and interesting discussion.
First, I will follow David Boundy's guidance.
But let me give a little more context in light of some other responses.
In this case, the invention is purely 100% mechanical. It relates to an improvement of a device that has existed for over 100 years. The inventor's expertise and background are all mechanical. He has zero background in electrical or computer-related technology.
The patent attorney has expertise and qualifications in electrical and computer-related technologies.
During drafting, the patent attorney recognized that the 100% purely mechanical device could be combined with a particular type of electrical device. This combination is useful. But it was entirely out of the realm of the inventor's knowledge or technical background. The inventor would not have realized the problem, let alone contemplated the solution. In this case, the patent attorney's contribution was not "a particular embodiment/application/combination … contemplated by the inventors." The inventor's honest answer to " Do you envision that this could be … ?" would have been "Heck no. Never in a million years!"
As to the question: "What's the potential advantage of naming the attorney as an inventor?"
Well, what if ten years from now, the invention makes a bazillion dollars, and the attorney wants his share? Or maybe the patent attorney's heirs want his share?
Or what if the inventor is in his 30s, and the patent attorney is 65 years old, and the application can get special treatment in the USPTO?
[I once took over the prosecution of an application that named two inventors, father and son. While the father had the right technical qualifications, I was sure he was named just to get the special "over 65" treatment in the USPTO.]
Or what about all the arguments made here a few weeks ago about over-inclusion of inventors rather than under-inclusion? [Per Carl's recent email]
But again, I will follow Boundy's advice.
P.S. Last year, I had dinner with an ex and an old client. I'd worked with him in 1994-95, and got him 5 or 6 patents. His invention (at a small company) made the company a lot of money through patent enforcement and licensing. At one point in the dinner, he got very earnest and said he had something to get off his chest. Something he had felt bad about for almost 30 years. He said he always felt I should have been named an inventor. The breakthrough in the invention came from something I'd asked during one of our initial meetings. It gave him an insight that he'd not previously had, and it was the way the invention was implemented and claimed. Had I been named as an inventor, I would just have assigned the invention to the client anyway. Maybe it would have been nice to be named on those patents, but that is just about vanity. I told him it was no big deal and I still paid for dinner.
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Reply-To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 10:05 AM
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com><mailto:PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Patent lawyer as inventor on client's application?
Yes. Exactly and emphatically. Different facts and different case law leads to different outcomes.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 8:51 AM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
While we are on this topic. It was just a few weeks ago that many members of this listserv piled on top of each other, urging to anyone who would listen that if you had to make a mistake with your inventor list, it absolutely was better to commit the sin of misjoinder than nonjoinder. That if you are going to make a mistake with your inventor list, there are a seemingly infinite number of risks and downsides and traps for the unwary if your mistake were to be in the direction of failing to include some otherwise possibly deserving name on your inventor list. That a mistake the other way (perhaps including some name on the inventor list that might arguably not belong there) was by far the less risky, had virtually no downsides, and did not give rise to traps for the unwary.
And yet now (I have not been keeping close score on this) it seems that many of the same members of this listserv are urging that no matter how deserving the attorney might be to get included on the inventor list, the correct next step is nonjoinder.
On 12/10/2024 8:38 AM, Jeffrey Semprebon via Patentpractice wrote:
Where I've had this issue arise has been where, while drafting the application, I've seen either a way to work around the narrower claims based on the inventor's disclosed embodiments or a way to accomplish the same functional limitation with a simpler structure than used by the inventors (or both).
Suppose that the client likes whatever modification/alternative well enough to put it into a dependent claim, and then during examination it turns out that such limitation is needed to distinguish over prior art found by the examiner. In that case, does failing to name the practitioner as inventor invite any risk if the named inventors will have to truthfully state during depositions that the practitioner was the one who thought of that limitation?
-Jeff
Jeffrey E. Semprebon
Registered Patent Agent (mechanical) looking for remote work
jesemprebon at gmail.com<mailto:jesemprebon at gmail.com>
72 Myrtle Street
Claremont, New Hampshire 03743
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Boundy via Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com>
www.canadylortz.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com<mailto: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] 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]
● When a statement of fact made solely as attorney argument is erroneous without intent, it’s not inequitable conduct.[3] 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]
… 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<mailto: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<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
--
Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified.
<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<mailto:dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1 646.472.9737<tel:%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<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
--
Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified.
<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<mailto:dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1 646.472.9737<tel:%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.
--
Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified.
<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<mailto:dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1 646.472.9737<tel:%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<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
-- Patentpractice mailing list Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241210/ab86041e/attachment.html>
More information about the Patentpractice
mailing list