MPEP § 2304.05 — Common Ownership (Annotated Rules)
§2304.05 Common Ownership
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2304.05, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Common Ownership
This section addresses Common Ownership. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 CFR 41.206, and 37 CFR 1.56. Contains: 1 requirement, 1 guidance statement, 2 permissions, and 1 other statement.
Key Rules
Duty of Disclosure Fundamentals
An interference is rarely appropriate between two applications or an application and patent that belong to the same owner. The owner should ordinarily be able to determine priority and is obligated under 37 CFR 1.56 to inform the examiner about which application or patent is entitled to priority. The examiner may require an election of priority between the application and other application or patent. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
An interference is rarely appropriate between two applications or an application and patent that belong to the same owner. The owner should ordinarily be able to determine priority and is obligated under 37 CFR 1.56 to inform the examiner about which application or patent is entitled to priority. The examiner may require an election of priority between the application and other application or patent. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
An interference is rarely appropriate between two applications or an application and patent that belong to the same owner. The owner should ordinarily be able to determine priority and is obligated under 37 CFR 1.56 to inform the examiner about which application or patent is entitled to priority. The examiner may require an election of priority between the application and other application or patent. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
Estoppel After Judgment
An administrative patent judge may decline to declare, or if already declared the Board may issue judgment in, an interference between an application and another application or patent that are commonly owned.
Consent of Assignee
In making the election, the owner must eliminate the commonly claimed subject matter. This may be accomplished by canceling the interfering application claims, disclaiming the interfering patent claims, amending the application claims such that they no longer interfere, or filing a reissue application to amend the patent claims such that they no longer interfere.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Duty of Disclosure Fundamentals | 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) |
| Duty of Disclosure Fundamentals | 37 CFR § 1.56 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2304.05 — Common Ownership
Source: USPTO2304.05 Common Ownership [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 41.206 Common interests in the invention.
An administrative patent judge may decline to declare, or if already declared the Board may issue judgment in, an interference between an application and another application or patent that are commonly owned.
An interference is rarely appropriate between two applications or an application and patent that belong to the same owner. The owner should ordinarily be able to determine priority and is obligated under 37 CFR 1.56 to inform the examiner about which application or patent is entitled to priority. The examiner may require an election of priority between the application and other application or patent. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
In making the election, the owner must eliminate the commonly claimed subject matter. This may be accomplished by canceling the interfering application claims, disclaiming the interfering patent claims, amending the application claims such that they no longer interfere, or filing a reissue application to amend the patent claims such that they no longer interfere.
Example 1
Two corporations have applications that claim the same invention. After a merger of the corporations, the resulting corporation owns both applications. The new corporation is obligated to investigate priority. Once the corporation has had an opportunity to determine which application is entitled to priority, the corporation must elect between the applications or otherwise eliminate the need for an interference.
Example 2
J files an application in which J is the sole inventor and assignee. K files an application in which J and K are named as inventors and co-assignees. Although J is an owner of both applications, an interference may nevertheless be necessary if J and K disagree about which application is entitled to priority.