[Patentpractice] For a provisional application, difficulty gettign one inventor's signature

Fri Dec 20 15:51:51 UTC 2024

David - Failing to secure assignment from all inventors, prior to filing
your nonprovisional, jeopardizes entitlement to the ROP in all countries.
Ddi you read my article?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 6:01 AM David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That zeros in on my question.  I filed the provisional with the client
> company as "applicant."   I have assignments from four of the five
> inventors.
>
> The case law in section VI.D is pre-AIA, when "applicant" was the
> individual inventors.  So I think I've solved that problem (or rather, I'm
> not creating any new problems by waiting until I file the nonprovisional).
> (Except the problems Carl mentions in his comment "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!")
>
> Carl's comment is the encouragement I need to flog this horse once again.
> I will take a variant on Jamie's approach, I think.  Shame can be a
> motivator.
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 12:53 AM Rick Neifeld via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> "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 *Avoiding Failed Patent
>> Application Filings, 2023 Paper, Submitted for the NAPP annual meeting July
>> 19, 2023
>> <https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/Avoiding%20Failed%20Patent%20Application%20Filings,%202023%20Paper.pdf>"
>> Rick Neifeld, July 19, 2023., section *VI.D. The All Applicants Rule.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 2:21 PM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <
>> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind you need to record within three months.   See
>>> https://blog.oppedahl.com/best-practice-recording-us-patent-assignments/
>>> .   So I would not foot-drag the recordation, especially given that you
>>> don't have to pay any government fee to accomplish the recordation.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>    - I run afoul of Article 4 of Paris, risking a failure to comply
>>>    with SAOSIT.
>>>    - 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.
>>>    - The inventor gets run over by a truck.
>>>    - The inventor has a last day of work and is less cooperative than
>>>    before.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2024 12:04 PM, David Boundy via Patentpractice wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>>>
>>> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>>>
>>> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>>>
>>> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>>>
>>> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
>>> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>>>
>>> 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?>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241220/53b77d98/attachment.html>