C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.45

Application for patent by joint inventors

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly, and each must make an inventor's oath or declaration as required by § 1.63, except as provided for in § 1.64. If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor or inventors may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by the other joint inventor or inventors in lieu of an oath or declaration.

(b) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though:

(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;

(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or

(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.

(c) If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.

[77 FR 48815, Aug. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1971–1985 · leading case: John H. Coleman v. Martin B. Dines, 754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John H. Coleman v. Martin B. Dines, 754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “37 C.F.R. 1.45(b) (1982). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.”
In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693 (C.C.P.A. 1979). “The board’s final opinion indicated that: We agree with the Examiner that the unverified and unclear papers purportedly filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.45 do not establish that the inventorship of 329,151 and that of the instant case are the same.”
Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Indus., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 1357 (E.D. Pa. 1972). “” 37 C.F.R. 1.45 (b), a patent office rule in force at all times relevant to this action, promulgated under 35 U.”
Weil v. Fritz, 572 F.2d 856 (C.C.P.A. 1978). “We find nothing in the statute (35 USC 116), the decisions of our appellate tribunals or the Rules of Practice (37 CFR 1.45) which supports Weil’s two basic contentions noted above.”
Mattor v. Coolegem, 530 F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1976). “Upon a motion pursuant to 37 CFR 1.45(b), Loew was removed as a co-inventor, and the application result-antly became that of Mattor as the sole inventor.”
Iowa State Univ. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp. & Control Data Corp., Control Data Corp. v. Iowa State Univ. Rsch. Found., Inc., 444 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1971). “Rules of Practice 45 (37 C.F.R. 1.45) 2 'The first two paragraphs provide for the correction of the inadvertent joining or nonjoining of a person as a joing inventor.”
Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1974). “the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application after Cooke’s name was added as a co-inventor under 37 CFR 1.45(c) to those of Fritz and Evans.”
Iowa State Univ. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 444 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1971). “Rules of Practice 45 ( 37 C.F.R. § 1.45 ). . “The first two paragraphs provide for the correction of the inadvertent joining or nonjoining of a person as a joint inventor.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.45(b) — 2 cases
John H. Coleman v. Martin B. Dines, 754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “37 C.F.R. 1.45(b) (1982). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.”
Mattor v. Coolegem, 530 F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1976). “Upon a motion pursuant to 37 CFR 1.45(b), Loew was removed as a co-inventor, and the application result-antly became that of Mattor as the sole inventor.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.45(c) — 1 case
Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1974). “the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application after Cooke’s name was added as a co-inventor under 37 CFR 1.45(c) to those of Fritz and Evans.”
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.