Patent Law FAQ

The assignment of a priority right can significantly impact patent applications. According to MPEP 216:

‘The right of priority is a personal right of the applicant or his successor in title. It may be transferred to the extent and subject to the conditions provided for in the statutes.’

Key points about the assignment of priority rights:

• Priority rights can be transferred separately from the application itself.
• The assignment must be executed before filing the later application claiming priority.
• An assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in an application includes the right of priority.
• Partial assignments of priority rights are possible but must be clearly documented.

Proper assignment of priority rights is crucial for maintaining the earlier effective filing date, which can be critical for patentability and avoiding prior art rejections.

For more information on effective filing date, visit: effective filing date.

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

The assignment of a priority right can significantly impact patent applications. According to MPEP 216:

‘The right of priority is a personal right of the applicant or his successor in title. It may be transferred to the extent and subject to the conditions provided for in the statutes.’

Key points about the assignment of priority rights:

• Priority rights can be transferred separately from the application itself.
• The assignment must be executed before filing the later application claiming priority.
• An assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in an application includes the right of priority.
• Partial assignments of priority rights are possible but must be clearly documented.

Proper assignment of priority rights is crucial for maintaining the earlier effective filing date, which can be critical for patentability and avoiding prior art rejections.

For more information on effective filing date, visit: effective filing date.

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

The assignment of a priority right can significantly impact patent applications. According to MPEP 216:

‘The right of priority is a personal right of the applicant or his successor in title. It may be transferred to the extent and subject to the conditions provided for in the statutes.’

Key points about the assignment of priority rights:

• Priority rights can be transferred separately from the application itself.
• The assignment must be executed before filing the later application claiming priority.
• An assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in an application includes the right of priority.
• Partial assignments of priority rights are possible but must be clearly documented.

Proper assignment of priority rights is crucial for maintaining the earlier effective filing date, which can be critical for patentability and avoiding prior art rejections.

For more information on effective filing date, visit: effective filing date.

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.

The assignment of a priority right can significantly impact patent applications. According to MPEP 216:

‘The right of priority is a personal right of the applicant or his successor in title. It may be transferred to the extent and subject to the conditions provided for in the statutes.’

Key points about the assignment of priority rights:

• Priority rights can be transferred separately from the application itself.
• The assignment must be executed before filing the later application claiming priority.
• An assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in an application includes the right of priority.
• Partial assignments of priority rights are possible but must be clearly documented.

Proper assignment of priority rights is crucial for maintaining the earlier effective filing date, which can be critical for patentability and avoiding prior art rejections.

For more information on effective filing date, visit: effective filing date.

The ‘In re Van Esdonk’ case (187 USPQ 671, Comm’r Pat. 1975) is an important precedent in patent law regarding the perfection of foreign priority claims. Key points about this case include:

• It involved a situation where a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to patent issuance.
• The application was a continuation of an earlier application that had satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).
• The Commissioner held that perfecting a priority claim in the parent application satisfies the statute for the continuation application.

The MPEP states: In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the ‘applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.’

This case is significant because it allows for the perfection of foreign priority claims in continuation applications based on the parent application’s compliance, even after patent issuance.