(a) Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256, may, on application of all the parties and assignees, or on order of a court before which such matter is called in question, issue a certificate naming only the actual inventor or inventors.
(b) Any request to correct inventorship of a patent pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be accompanied by:
(1) A statement from each person who is being added as an inventor and each person who is currently named as an inventor either agreeing to the change of inventorship or stating that he or she has no disagreement in regard to the requested change;
(2) A statement from all assignees of the parties submitting a statement under paragraph (b)(1) of this section agreeing to the change of inventorship in the patent, which statement must comply with the requirements of § 3.73(c) of this chapter; and
(3) The fee set forth in § 1.20(b).
(c) For correction of inventorship in an application, see § 1.48.
(d) In an interference under part 41, subpart D, of this title, a request for correction of inventorship in a patent must be in the form of a motion under § 41.121(a)(2) of this title. In a contested case under part 42, subpart D, of this title, a request for correction of inventorship in a patent must be in the form of a motion under § 42.22 of this title. The motion under § 41.121(a)(2) or § 42.22 of this title must comply with the requirements of this section.
[77 FR 48822, Aug. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu \Paul\" Chu", 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 256 is 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 . 9 HOR v. CHU Moreover, the specific procedural rules governing §§ 116 and 135 further convince us that the district court’s reliance on these purported alternative remedies to support its laches analysis was misplaced.”
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
“A petition to correct inventorship, 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 (1991), may be filed during reissue proceedings.”
Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 618 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 (a) (“[whenever] through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his or her part,” the party requesting a correction of inventorship is permitted to submit a proper petition.”
Earth Resources Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 3× “On August 8,1989, ERC filed in the PTO a “Petition for Correction” of the ’180 patent under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 3 to add Nickens as co-inventor.”
Perseptive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 1998).
· cites it 2× “”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 (1996). 2 In re-examining the record evidence, as described in PerSeptive II, under this equitable balancing test, I conclude that the named inventors, particularly Professor Fred Regnier, .”
Dee v. Aukerman, 625 F. Supp. 1427 (S.D. Ohio 1986).
“In 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 and § 1.20(b), certain administrative procedures for correction before the commissioner are set forth.”
Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 894 F. Supp. 555 (D. Mass. 1995).
“” 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 (1994). 4 . Furthermore, Stark argues that he has not alleged that Advanced intended to deceive the Patent Office, only that Advanced attempted to deceive Stark, and thus the claim falls within the scope of 256.”
Winbond Elec. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 262 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “The PTO’s current regulation for correcting inventorship under the Director’s authority in Section 256 is 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 (1997). The PTO Rule 324 requires a party requesting a correction of inventorship to submit a proper petition, including: (1) Where one or more persons are…”
Cyber Acoustics, LLC v. Belkin Int'l, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Or. 2013).
“§ 256 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 , issue a Certificate of Correction to correct inventorship from Westrup to Steven Murphy, Kwong Chi Kei, and Lui Suen Yen.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.324(b) — 1 case
Winbond Elec. Corp. & Winbond Elec. North Am. Corp., & Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., & Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., & MacRonix Int'l Co., Ltd. & MacRonix Am., Inc., Intervenors v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, & Atmel Corp., Intervenor. Atmel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, & MacRonix Int'l Co., Ltd. & MacRonix Am., Inc., Intervenors, & Winbond Elec. Corp. & Winbond Elec. North Am. Corp., Intervenors, & Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., Intervenor, & Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., Intervenor, 262 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.324(b)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.