The 'Four Cs

Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 21 | Issue 1 Article 4 October 2013 The 'Four Cs' of Joint Inventorship: A Practical Framework for Determining Joint Inventorship Bradley M. Krul Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Bradley M. Krul, The 'Four Cs' of Joint Inventorship: A Practical Framework for Determining Joint Inventorship, 21 J. Intell. Prop. L. 73 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol21/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact . Krul: The 'Four Cs' of Joint Inventorship: A Practical Framework for De THE 'FOUR CS' OF JOINT INVENTORSHIP: A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING JOINT INVENTORSHIP Bradley M. Krt TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRO DUCTIO N ........................................................................................ II. THE IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT JOINT INVENTORSHIP .................. 76 III. THE IMPACT OF THE AIA ON JOINT INVENTORSHIP ........................ 77 IV. THE LAW OF JOINT INVENTORSHIP ................................................... A. COLLABORATION .............................................................................. 82 84 B. CONTRIBUTION .................................................................................. 85 C. 1. Merely CarryingOutActs orInstructions ofAnother Inventor............. 88 2. Merey Suggesting a DesiredEnd .................................................... 88 3. Contribuing Well-Known Concepts or Explaining the Current State of the A rt ............................................................................. 89 CORROBORATION ............................................................................. 91 1. O ralTestimony .............................................................................. 92 2. D. V. 75 W ritten Records.............................................................................. 92 CLAIM S ................................................................................................ 94 JOINT INVENTORSHIP FRAMEWORK ..................................................... STEP A. DETERMINE IF THE ALLEGED JOINT INVENTOR 95 COLLABORATED WITH THE OTHER JOINT INVENTORS ........... 96 STEP B. DETERMINE IF THE ALLEGED JOINT INVENTOR MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONCEPTION OF THE INVENTION ................................................................... Inquiy # 1 .................................................................................... Inquiry # 2 ....................................................................................... Inquiry # 3 ....................................................................................... 97 99 100 100 Bradley M. Krul is an associate in the Intellectual Property Department at Foley & Lardner LLP and is a member of the firm's Mechanical and Electromechanical Technologies Practice Group. Bradley would like to thank Professors Christopher Frerking and John Orcutt for their input and feedback while writing this Article. Published by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law, 2013 1 Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 21, Iss. 1 [2013], Art. 4 74 J. INTELL PROP. L [Vol. 21:73 100 Inquiy # 4 ....................................................................................... . ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. . 101 5 Inqui y # ..................................................... STEP C. DETERMINE IF THE ALLEGED JOINT INVENTOR'S CONTRIBUTION IS CORROBORATED ......................................... 101 STEP D. DETERMINE IF THE ALLEGED JOINT INVENTOR'S CONTRIBUTION APPEARS IN A CLAIM OF THE PATENT ........ 102 V I. C O N CLUSIO N ............................................................................................... 103 VII. APPEN D IXA ................................................................................................ 104 https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol21/iss1/4 2 Krul: The 'Four Cs' of Joint Inventorship: A Practical Framework for De 20131 THE FOUR CS' OFJOINTINVENTORSHIP I. INTRODUCTION In practice, most patent attorneys are not involved with the day-to-day activities of inventors. As a result, they rely on information provided by engineers and scientists to determine who the inventors are, what was invented, and when it was invented. Ultimately, attorneys serve an after-the-fact role in determining who is an inventor under the law of inventorship. Combine this with the fact that many potential joint inventors are incentivized to make false inventorship claims, and it becomes clear why joint inventorship is one of the most difficult determinations to make. A practical, step-by-step framework would be helpful in evaluating joint inventorship claims; however, no step-bystep framework currently exists. The purpose of this Article is to provide a step-by-step framework to help attorneys recognize and determine joint inventorship correctly. Determining joint inventorship correctly is important for identifying potential ownership rights to a patent and for assessing the validity of a patent) According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the definition of inventorship [c]an be simp/y stated: "[t]he threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor... [i]nsofar as defining an inventor is concerned, reduction to practice, per se, is irrelevant [except for simultaneous conception and reduction to practice] ...."2 This definition seems simple enough. In fact, however, determining what conception entails, who contributed to conception, and whether contributions to reduction to practice are relevant has made the law of inventorship one of the most complex areas of patent law. 3 Still, there is no need to fret. As attorneys, we approach every problem methodically and mechanically. Determining joint inventorship is no different. Part II of this Article discusses the importance of correctly determining joint inventorship in both the corporate and non-corporate settings. Part III explores the impact of certain 1 John J. Okuley, Resolution of Inventorship Diputes:Avoiding Litigation Through Early Evaluation, 18 OHIO ST.J. ON DisP. REsOL. 915, 939 (2003). 2 MPEP § 2137.01 (8th ed. Rev. 8, July 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). 3 See Jamesbury Corp. v. United States, 518 F.2d 1384, 1396 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (stating that joint inventorship is one of the most "muddiest concepts" in American Patent law). Published by Digital Commons @ Ge (...truncated)