It is a no-brainer that the inventor owns their invention, unless otherwise noted. A usual exception is one where the inventor signs an agreement to allow the inventors employer to own the rights of the patent. This is usually required in the individual employment contract. Without a contract like that, the inventor keeps the right to the patent. Even with the AIA (American Invents Act), this fundamental principle is in place.
This gets tricky when an employee moves employers. One employee, in Dawson v Dawson, filed a patent with Caltech and another with ETH Zurich. The ETH Zurich patent filed but the Caltech one did not. The Caltech one was rejected on the doctrine of obviousness -type double patenting. This is interesting because ETH Zurich was filed afterwards, and was not considered prior art.
Normally this type of rejection for Caltech is non fatal given the following conditions:" (1) disclaims any term of enforcement that extends beyond the other patent and (2) agrees to that both patents will be co-owned throughout their lifespan. "
However, The problem is that the patents are not co-owned. Caltech cannot make that promise. Caltech argued that doubling patenting rejection should not apply because the two applications have different owners and inventors. However the court decided that Caltech cannot receive its patent. I agree with Caltech since they have different ownership, they really should be counted as separate patents. Oh well, this is how it goes with patent law
No comments:
Post a Comment