[Pct] Change of applicant in PCT application --> effect on Paris Art. 4 right of priority

Thu Feb 27 17:59:15 EST 2025

In this hypothetical, I believe there will not be any subsequent priority issues if the applicant is changed in the PCT application. The priority claim from the PCT to the provisional was established with the same applicant satisfying Paris Art. 4A(1). Subsequent changes to the applicant in the PCT application should not disrupt the priority claim established under the Paris Convention.

Regarding how a change in applicant might be viewed later in Europe, European counsel advises that the EPO has recently become much less willing to invalidate priority claims. The Enlarged Board concluded that there should be a rebuttable presumption that an applicant claiming priority is entitled to claim priority even where the priority applicant is not identical with the subsequent applicant(s). The Enlarged Board also confirmed that the new presumption of validity around priority entitlement is a “strong” presumption under normal circumstances, thus the hurdle for rebuttal is higher and requires any challenger to demonstrate “serious doubts” about priority entitlement.
https://www.potterclarkson.com/insights/relief-for-us-applicants-epo-takes-a-pragmatic-decision-on-priority/

-Ben

From: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 7:08 PM
To: For users of the PCT and ePCT. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Benjamin Keim <ben at newportip.com>; Rick Neifeld <richardneifeld at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Pct] Change of applicant in PCT application --> effect on Paris Art. 4 right of priority

Check with EP counsel first.  I am not licensed to have an opinion, but I can suggest you ask the question of someone who is licensed.  The question: (a) on your facts as they exist, is there a problem?  (b) if there is a problem, would it do any good to retroactively change to "applicant" of a parent, or is the problem locked in if the "applicant" mismatches between parent and daughter on the day of filing the daughter?   (c) If they matched, then is there anything to care about the parent?

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:36 PM Rick Neifeld via Pct <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
Ben - Why do you think it is "not possible to change the applicant once a provisional patent application ha[s] [sic] expired"? 37 CFR 1.76(c)(1) contains no such limitation.

"How would one go about changing the applicant for an expired provisional?" - I would review the relevant rules, file a suitable 1.76(c)(2) correction, and inquire with the office of petitions, ebc, and the application assistance unit to see about PTO processing of the correction. I think no petition is required, but I would have to check.  In any case, you can expedite processing by petitioning for expedited processing; the PTO always likes it when people file petition fees to speed things along. Good luck.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:52 PM Benjamin Keim <ben at newportip.com<mailto:ben at newportip.com>> wrote:
Hi Rick,

Thank you for the useful information. You mention correcting both the provisional patent application and the PCT application by naming both the university and the company as applicants. However, I understand that is not possible to change the applicant once a provisional patent application had expired. How would one go about changing the applicant for an expired provisional?

-Ben

From: Rick Neifeld <richardneifeld at gmail.com<mailto:richardneifeld at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 3:16 PM
To: For users of the PCT and ePCT. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Benjamin Keim <ben at newportip.com<mailto:ben at newportip.com>>
Subject: Re: [Pct] Change of applicant in PCT application --> effect on Paris Art. 4 right of priority

Ben - The existing priority case law is covered in my book, Law Regarding Patents.
You said " the provisional application from which the PCT claims priority has only Company A as the applicant. " .
You said "I did not know this when originally working on the applications and so filed in the name of Company A."  I take that to mean you filed both the provisional and the PCT application naming company A as the applicant.

"My client and a university did joint research. Their research agreement says the parties shall jointly hold title to all inventions."  - This "shall jointly hold title to all inventions." does not use present tense assignment language, a la Federal Circuit "automatic assignment" law.  That sounds like an equittable title agreement, not an assignment. UK courts have spoken to whether the Paris right of priority accrues to equitable title.  EPO has refused parol evidence to discount a person named as an Applicant in a priority application. The EPO concluded that a Paris article 4's "any person" referred to the named applicant of a US provisional application, regardless whether the named applicant had the legal right to effect the provisional application filing.

The EPO and UK legal conclusions are arguably inconsistent.  At least their reasoning regarding parol evidence is at odds.

 "I would prefer just to keep everything in the name of Company A and let them work out a license." - A license would be contrary to the existence of an equitable title.

 "I believe I can change the applicant in the PCT application from Company A to Company A + University B with a rule 92bis request. " - Noted.

"The research agreement should provide evidence of joint ownership." - The research agreement provides evidence of equitable title.  Rule 92bis.1 does not require proof of ownership of a newly named applicant to effect a change adding the newly named applicant as such.

You did not mention the option that aligns the rights with the facts, which would be to correct both the provisional application and the PCT application by naming both the university and the company as applicants.

As to your proposal to add the university as an applicant only to the PCT application, See Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG v. Porsche AG, T 1933/12 (EPO Board 2/21/2014) ("As far as the board is concerned, Article 87 (1) EPC does not preclude the (individual) applicant for the first application from sharing his right of priority with a third party by filing an application claiming priority with him," as  translated from German.)

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 5:23 PM Benjamin Keim via Pct <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
I am trying to determine if the applicant can be changed in a pending PCT application without causing a problem with a priority claim to a provisional. I would like the answer to be "no" to keep things simple.

My client and a university did joint research. Their research agreement says the parties shall jointly hold title to all inventions. (I have counseled my client about the problems of joint ownership for US patents.) The research agreement is dated before filing of the provisional application.

I did not know this when originally working on the applications and so filed in the name of Company A. I would prefer just to keep everything in the name of Company A and let them work out a license. However, the university may wish to change the applicant on the PCT to also include them.

I believe I can change the applicant in the PCT application from Company A to Company A + University B with a rule 92bis request. The research agreement should provide evidence of joint ownership.

However, the provisional application from which the PCT claims priority has only Company A as the applicant. If I change the applicant on the PCT application, it would no longer be the same as on the provisional. Company A ≠ Company A + University B. This would create a SAOSIT problem between the provisional and the PCT application. Can this be addressed?

I thought this might be something that can be handled with declaration 3. But the PCT application has passed the 4/16 date and published. The 30-month date is in April. Even if a declaration could be filed, I am not sure what I would say. Something like:

The provisional application was filed in the name of Company A but at the time of filing the provisional application this invention was actually owned jointly by Company A + University B. So, Company A + University B is the successor in title to Company A because we should have listed Company A + University B from the beginning.

My apologies if this is a topic that has been well covered in previous posts.

-Ben

--
Pct mailing list
Pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_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<mailto: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.

--
Pct mailing list
Pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com

--

[Image removed by sender.]
<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<mailto: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?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/55cd459d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD0107.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD0107.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/55cd459d/attachment.jpg>