35 U.S.C. § 118
Filing by other than inventor
A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. If the Director grants a patent on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers to be sufficient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “§ 117 (1994) (entitled "Death or incapacity of inventor"), 35 U.S.C. § 118 (1994) (entitled "Filing by other than inventor”); see also P.”
Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “219), Plaintiff, for a second time, fails to satisfy the fourth prong of the pleading standard in not specifying any federal or state law that Defendants have violated, see Kamdemr-Ouaffo, 2015 WL 1011816 , at *12 (“Plaintiff does not explain how PepsiCo’s actions were…”
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The merger agreement provided: “STC assigns to [WesternGeco] in accordance with Article 2 all right, title, 4 Indeed, 35 U.S.C. §§ 118 and 261 contemplate as- signment of a right to receive a patent.”
Deere & Co. v. Van Natta, 660 F. Supp. 433 (M.D.N.C. 1986). “Furthermore, as the Plaintiff acknowledges, such an order would not be necessary even were the court to determine the public use issue, since “Deere’s filing of the patent applications on his inventions under the alternative filing provisions of the patent act ( 35 U.S.C. § 118…”
George R. Cogar v. William E. Schuyler, Jr., Comm'r of Patents, & Sperry Rand Corp., 464 F.2d 747 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “whether an inventor can prevent the issuance of a patent to himself; more specifically whether a protesting inventor, fearing injury to reputation from publication of a patent thought to be anticipated by the prior art, is entitled to an oral hearing in the Patent Office to…”
Repub. Eng'g & Mfg. Co. v. Moskovitz, 376 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964). “As authorized by the patent laws, 35 U.S.C.A. § 118 , plaintiff Republic thereupon filed the unsigned applications with the Patent Office, supported by affidavits as to its interests.”
Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Ladd, 225 F. Supp. 709 (D.D.C. 1964). “17,924 (this is the number used by American Cyanamid Company in their records to designate the invention involved herein), submitted to the defendant by the plaintiff, American Cyanamid Company, under 35 U.S.C. § 118 , and by the plaintiff, Dorothy Ann Livingston Carvalho, under…”
Sturzinger v. Comm'r of Patents, 377 F. Supp. 1284 (D.D.C. 1974). “On February 3, 1972 the Patent Office refused to assign the “proposed application” a filing date of April 13, 1971 on the ground inter alia that the ostensible applicant (counsel) had not demonstrated a sufficient proprietary interest in the subject matter thereof as required by…”
Fortress Iron L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2025). “35 U.S.C. § 118 . As alleged, Fortress falsely claimed to be an assignee of the rights and interests of the various inventors (particularly Mr.”
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.