[Pct] Combine two priority filings from different countries and applicants into one PCT

[Roger Browdy]

Not to mention the possible problem of an Indian inventor first filing A2 outside of India without a foreign filing license or its equivalent in India.

Roger L. Browdy
Partner
_____________________________________________
FisherBroyles, LLP
direct: +1 202-277-5198
roger.browdy at fisherbroyles.com<mailto:roger.browdy at fisherbroyles.com>
www.fisherbroyles.com<http://www.fisherbroyles.com/>

The information contained in this e-mail message is only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.



From: Pct <pct-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Rick Neifeld via Pct
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:43 AM
To: For users of the PCT and ePCT. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Rick Neifeld <richardneifeld at gmail.com>; Ryan Gleitz <rgleitz at lsk-iplaw.com>
Subject: Re: [Pct] Combine two priority filings from different countries and applicants into one PCT

"If there was no assignment from A1 to A2, what would be different regarding the PCT filing?"  - If no assignment before filing of the PCT, then the PCT would have failed to comply with the successor in title provisions of Paris article 4.

"They have a corporate assignment from A1 to A2 for the India application." - Is there an unbroken chain of title under the applicable choice of laws provision?  Does Indian law vest ownership in a corporate entity disrespecting natural law rights, if any, of the inventors? Did the inventors assign in writing the first application to A1, and did the other inventors assign from the second application to A2?

Is the subject of any claim not supported entirely by a single priority application?  If not, then you have an issue.

Bodenhousen does not address the question whether Paris 4A(1)'s  "one" of the countries of the Union has preclusive effect. And I am not aware of any case raising that issue regarding entitlement to Paris priority.

Rick


On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 8:28 AM Ryan Gleitz via Pct <pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:pct at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
Hi all, I’d appreciate any insights into or pitfalls to avoid in this scenario:

Applicant A1 files a priority founding application in India.
Applicant A2 files a priority founding application in US on the same day.
They have different inventors but related subject matter.

They want to combine specs into a single PCT filed by Applicant A2. They have a corporate assignment from A1 to A2 for the India application.

Does anyone know of anything I should to now to avoid trouble at PCT and/or national stage?

If there was no assignment from A1 to A2, what would be different regarding the PCT filing?

Thanks

--
Pct mailing list
Pct at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Pct at oppedahl-lists.com>
Click here to unsubscribe:  http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oppedahl-2Dlists.com_mailman_listinfo_pct-5Foppedahl-2Dlists.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=7yDyUE5lzuruhwIvS68v9eFQKnrJuSrXb1MxDfvR_V8&m=xt-w00FazFdDYp_JPVCe_zQspdScLk-eC8FtvLgMO0iXyZBbtRWn3YrooZ_EIfjf&s=womAapd2kGS-4l0NeRCFUgCazs42IJxzfmbx_vCV8p8&e=>


--
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250613/42470bd7/attachment.html>