37 C.F.R. § 1.47
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/hydrocurve, Inc., and Barnes-Hind International, Inc.
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/hydrocurve, Inc., and Barnes-Hind International, Inc. (1986)
“Instances of inventors refusing even to cooperate in obtaining issuance of a patent to be owned by an assignee are common and machinery is provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 to deal with them. Section 1.”
United States v. E. L. Markham, Jr. (1976)
“Rule 47(b) of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (b) provides in part that: “Whenever an inventor refuses to execute an application for patent, .”
Elite Licensing, Inc. v. Thomas Plastics, Inc. (2003)
“Because the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Rules require that an effort be made to obtain the inventor’s signature to a patent application, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (b), Horowitz called Ciha-nek and asked him to review and sign the application, but Cihanek refused.”
University of West Virginia Board of Trustees v. VanVoorhies (2000)
“Application ’340 named VanVoorhies as the sole inventor, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (b). 50 This regulation, subject to the Patent Office’s approval of the evidence presented, permits the rightful owner of an invention *767 to file a patent application when an inventor refuses to…”
University of West Virginia, Board of Trustees v. Vanvoorhies (2002)
“The application was filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (b), which permits a party with a sufficient interest in an invention to file a patent application when an inventor refuses to execute the application.”
Cook Biotech Inc. v. ACell, Inc. (2006)
“On August 27, 2002, while the ’265 patent was still pending, PRF asked the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) to declare an interference pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (a). In its petition, PRF asserted that four other individuals, including Dr.”
Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. Plasteak, Inc. (2009)
“41 (a) ("A patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.”). However, U.S. patent law does provide procedures for the filing of patent applications by non-inventors "when an inventor refuses to sign or cannot be reached.”
Cell Genesys, Inc. v. Applied Research Systems ARS Holding, N.V. (2007)
“” 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (b). Nevertheless, CGI presented neither Dr.”
Linkow v. Linkow (1975)
“804,738 for “Wide Vent Dental Implants,” filed February 24, 1969, under Rule 47(a), 37 CFR 1.47(a), Linkow having refused to join in the application).”
Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corporation and Control Data Corporation, Control Data Co (1971)
“This section and Patent Office Rules of Practice 47 (37 C.F.R. 1.47) allow an application to be filed and a patent to issue even though a joint inventor refuses to join in the application.”
Baker Hughes Inc. v. Kirk (1995)
“Hydril and the other two inventors sought, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (a), to have the patent application allowed to proceed without Bollfrass joining in the application.”
Legacy Seating, Inc. v. Commercial Plastics Co. (2014)
“) Gross filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USP-TO) to add Watters to the patent application as a co-inventor without his signature, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (a). (R. 47-6, Ex. E, Legacy’s Petition to Add Joint Inventor ¶¶ 1-3.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) — 2 cases
Linkow v. Linkow (1975)
“804,738 for “Wide Vent Dental Implants,” filed February 24, 1969, under Rule 47(a), 37 CFR 1.47(a), Linkow having refused to join in the application).”
Baker Hughes Inc. v. Kirk (1995)
“Hydril and the other two inventors sought, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.47 (a), to have the patent application allowed to proceed without Bollfrass joining in the application.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(b) — 2 cases
Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. Plasteak, Inc. (2009)
“41 (a) ("A patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.”). However, U.S. patent law does provide procedures for the filing of patent applications by non-inventors "when an inventor refuses to sign or cannot be reached.”
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.