{"id":1104,"date":"2016-08-11T21:42:33","date_gmt":"2016-08-12T01:42:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1104"},"modified":"2016-08-13T14:26:04","modified_gmt":"2016-08-13T18:26:04","slug":"district-court-correctly-added-inventors-who-contributed-to-at-least-one-claim-element","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1104","title":{"rendered":"District Court Correctly Added Inventors Who Contributed to at least one Claim Element"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Vapor Point LLC. v. Moorhead<\/em>, [2015-1801, 2015-2003] (August 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s correction of inventorship, dismissal of the infringement action, and denial of a attorneys’ fees.<\/p>\n

A person who alleges that he is a co-inventor of the\u00a0invention claimed in an issued patent who was not listed\u00a0as an inventor on the patent may bring a cause of action\u00a0to correct inventorship in a district court under 35 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 256. \u00a0Inventorship is a question of\u00a0law entitled to de novo review by this court. \u00a0All inventors,\u00a0even those who contribute to only one claim or one\u00a0aspect of one claim of a patent, must be listed on that\u00a0patent.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit agreed that the district court’s findings were sufficient to support its\u00a0inventorship judgment. Co-inventors need not\u00a0physically work together or at the same time, make the\u00a0same type or amount of contribution, or make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent. \u00a0Inventorship is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that inventorship and ownership are separate
\nissues. \u00a0The patent owner waived the Federal Circuit’s review of whether the added inventors had an obligation to assign the invention\u00a0by affirmatively representing\u00a0to the district court that resolution of the inventorship\u00a0issue would dispose of the infringement issue.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Vapor Point LLC. v. Moorhead, [2015-1801, 2015-2003] (August 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s correction of inventorship, dismissal of the infringement action, and denial of a attorneys’ fees. A person who alleges that he is a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inventorship"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1104","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1104"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1104\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1105,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1104\/revisions\/1105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}