Inventive entity

If the earlier patent application was to the same inventive entity then 102(a) and 102(e) would not apply since those sections apply to the work of another. However, exclusions under 103(c)/102(e) draw their usefulness from the fact that very often in an organization or within a group working together under a research collaboration, different or at least overlapping groups of inventors may work on related aspects of a project such that multiple patent applications may be filed over a period of time where each patent application lists a different inventive entity. In addition, the publication date of the first application is also important since it cannot be antedated in the patent world outside the United States. 

As we saw in the previous section, properly determining inventorship is important because inventorship determines initial ownership and all of the attendant financial considerations that go with it. Listing proper inventorship is also critically important because improper inventorship means that the inventors listed are not the actual inventors of the subject matter. If you are thinking to yourself, so what then you need to recall that 102(f) of the U.S. patent code provides that A person shall be entitled to a patent unless. ..he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented (emphasis added). In 102(f), the word he refers to the inventive entity (all of the inventors) named on the patent.10 Thus if an inventor has been left off the patent (referred to as nonjoinder of a proper inventor), then the listed inventors did not invent the subject matter of the claimed invention entirely themselves since they did not invent all of the subject matter of the claimed invention.11 Such a patent is invalid. Likewise, if a patent is granted that lists one or more persons who were not actually inventors, then he would not have invented all of the subject matter sought to be patented since some of the listed inventors would not actually be inventors (this is referred to as misjoinder ). Such a patent is also invalid. If this seems a harsh remedy for what can be a difficult determination to make (as we soon will see), then you will be relieved to know that mistakes in inventorship can be corrected both before and after issuance of the patent. 

Only the actual inventor may apply for a patent (utility, design, or plant patent). Once a patent has been obtained, the patent can be sold or mortgaged. Also, the owner of a patent may assign part or all interest in the patent to another individual or a company or other business entity. The owner of a patent may also grant licenses to others (either individuals or business entities) to make, use or sell the invention. 

Whereas species and phases exist as real entities that can be observed in nature, components are simply mathematical tools for describing composition. Expressed another way, a component s stoichiometry but not identity matters water, ice, and steam serve equally well as component H2O. Since a component needs no identity, it may be either Active or a species or phase that actually exists in the system. When we express the composition of a fluid in terms of elements or the composition of a rock in terms of oxides, we do not imply that elemental sodium occurs in the fluid, or that calcium oxide is found in the rock. These are Active components. If we want, we can invent components that exist nowhere in nature. 

From the ethical standpoint, a patentable invention or a trade secret is like a piece of real estate it can be sold once, but then the original owner has no right to sell it again. On the other hand, we might compare an inventor with spectacular skill with the owner of an apartment house who can rent out an apartment and collect rent each month. Similarly, the scientist with unique skills can rent out those skills as an employee of a single entity or as a consultant to several, but he should be sure that he is renting skills and not purloining trade secrets. 

As a preliminary matter, the nonprovisional patent application, whether filed in the United States directly or when it enters the U.S. national stage via the PCT, requires that all applicants must be inventors and all of the inventors names and addresses must be provided with the patent application. This is in contrast to many other patent jurisdictions, where the applicant can be a business entity, such as the company an inventor may have assigned his invention to. Additionally, all nonprovisional patent applications require an oath or declaration of inventorship to be included with the patent application or submitted within the prescribed time thereafter. The requirements of the oath or declaration of inventorship are explained in 37 CFR 1.63-1.69. Initial entry of patent applications to the United States from the PCT are governed by the Code as outlined in 35 U.S.C. 371 National stage Commencement. 

Machine invention is clearly an act of synthesis, as is engineering design. In synthesis we construct, assemble, and put together ideas, elements, concepts, or combinations of these in order to create an artifact that hopefully does something useful. We combine elements into a whole, into a new entity. 

In the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries it is most important to obtain a patent covering inventions on new chemical entities, sometimes called compositions of matter . These composition of matter patents are of great value as they will dominate any future patenting activity by competitors, for instance on materials showing im-... 

This tacit commitment to (IR1) shows that the internal realist account of reference is indeed a species of the anti-realist answer to the skeptical challenge. The challenge, posed by Putnam s model-theoretic argument was this. If the structure of the world were independent of the human mind, how could concepts and words, which are human inventions, refer to the elements of the structure The answer provided here is that the structure of the world is not independent of the mind. The criteria of identity for entities derive from the justification conditions which govern the use of concepts. So the entities out there and the entities our words are intended to apply to are bound to be the same. We should not be surprised that the top slices meet the bottom slices. We just slice from the top and reach the bottom. 

Whether an invention is by a sole inventor or by a joint inventor, it is a mental product. It is either a sole or a joint mental product. Joint inventors are one legal animal, and a sole inventor is another legal animal. If chemist A is the applicant on one invention and chemists A and B are the applicants on another related invention, they are separate legal entities. To demonstrate dramatically how different, it has been held (7) that a joint invention of both A and B is a good anticipation to a later related invention of either A or B, and the fact that either A or B was a joint inventor of the reference does not discredit the reference in the slightest. 

The chemical art creates great problems in determining a correct chemical inventor entity. One built-in problem is the frequent later determination of a utility for a chemical compound or composition. An invention is not complete until its usefulness is determined, and this utility may be established either by an extended technical arm of the chemist who made the compound or by someone who is not such an arm. 

Other problems arise with new chemical compounds and compositions on one hand, and methods to make these compounds and compositions on the other hand. Every chemist knows that the first devised process has a lot of bugs, and it is necessary to determine proper reaction conditions such as concentration, temperature, and the like. Whether or not determination of such conditions is the work of an extended technical arm presents other problems. The determination of the chemical inventor entity is often a difficult problem, and it remains difficult even when all the facts of a particular situation are presented to a solicitor. Most often, the chemist inventor, the chemist joint inventors, and the chemist s technical arm will themselves appreciate what is the correct inventive picture. Chemists have an interest in this problem and should not hesitate to plead their case to the patent solicitor. Solicitors should not be overly officious in pronouncing an inventor entity but should be liberal and have an eye turned towards the morale, working relationships, and working conditions of the chemist. Liberality of course should never become laxity, which would endanger any issued patent. 

---