Anwalt in Rente:
By: wickber
10 Mar 2005, 02:12 PM EST
Msg. 71763 of 71763
(This msg. is a reply to 71759 by dued_works.)
Jump to msg. #
dued works: I have not inspected the PTO official file history of the 336 patent but I raised this issue before I decided to purchase PTSC shares in late Jan 05. I wondered by the inventorship issue had not been raised during prosecution of the 336 patent application. The answer from some on this board, I believe Ease, was that Moore and Fish had had a falling out by that time and Moore would not cooperate with inventorship correction and so it was put off until later which turned out to be after the patent issued. As far as I know the 336 patent application was merely filed as a division of the original application and such file does not require any new papers to be signed by the inventor(s). Unless the inventors or their patent attorney tell the PTO that the inventorship should be sole instead of joint, the PTO does not take any action because it doesnt know there is a potential problem. It is the duty of the inventors and their patent attorney to correct the inventorship, but where the correction may involve the dropping of one of the inventors understandably may result in a dispute between them and no action taken. Higgins could have brought this to the PTO's attention and the the PTO might have required the inventors to submit declarations as to the facts of the inventorship situation and any supporting documents. But I assume that didnt happen here. After issuance of the patent, the route in the PTO of reissuance of the patent with corrected inventorship could have been taken but such action would have been based on an inadvertent mistake being made in the filing with the incorrect inventorship. So it seems as though the situation was pushed off into the future and thus we find ourselves in the present situation. I dont believe this sort of lawsuit between those named as inventors on a patent happens very often. It is my understanding, it may be a mistaken one though, that Moore is the party that was uncooperative and stonewalled the issue since it was he who would have been dropped. Based on what others have said on this and other boards, it is my impression that Moore is the one who is the culprit. But, again, I dont believe the PTO decided in any positive way that they were both co-inventors other than it issued the patent because both names were on the application papers at the time it was filed. If PTSC and Fish have corroborated (witnessed) documentary evidence that Fish alone was the inventor and Moore has no documentary support, then PTSC may have a persuasive case, meeting the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that will overcome the rebutable presumption of the correctness of the names of Fish and Moore as coinventors on the patent and PTSC could still win the lawsuit even without Higgins' testimony.
|
