Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Sufficient evidence of reduction to practice is crucial in patent law, especially when establishing priority or defending against challenges. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on what constitutes adequate evidence:
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he or she constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim, and (2) he or she determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
Sufficient evidence typically includes:
- Detailed laboratory notebooks or records documenting the invention’s development and testing
- Witness testimony corroborating the inventor’s activities
- Physical prototypes or samples of the invention
- Test results demonstrating the invention’s functionality
- Dated and signed documents describing the invention
It’s important to note that the evidence must be contemporaneous with the alleged reduction to practice and should clearly show that the invention works as intended. Mere speculation or theoretical calculations are generally insufficient to prove reduction to practice.
To learn more:
MPEP 2109 – Inventorship (1)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
MPEP 2138.05 – "Reduction To Practice" (1)
Sufficient evidence of reduction to practice is crucial in patent law, especially when establishing priority or defending against challenges. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on what constitutes adequate evidence:
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he or she constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim, and (2) he or she determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
Sufficient evidence typically includes:
- Detailed laboratory notebooks or records documenting the invention’s development and testing
- Witness testimony corroborating the inventor’s activities
- Physical prototypes or samples of the invention
- Test results demonstrating the invention’s functionality
- Dated and signed documents describing the invention
It’s important to note that the evidence must be contemporaneous with the alleged reduction to practice and should clearly show that the invention works as intended. Mere speculation or theoretical calculations are generally insufficient to prove reduction to practice.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Sufficient evidence of reduction to practice is crucial in patent law, especially when establishing priority or defending against challenges. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on what constitutes adequate evidence:
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he or she constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim, and (2) he or she determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
Sufficient evidence typically includes:
- Detailed laboratory notebooks or records documenting the invention’s development and testing
- Witness testimony corroborating the inventor’s activities
- Physical prototypes or samples of the invention
- Test results demonstrating the invention’s functionality
- Dated and signed documents describing the invention
It’s important to note that the evidence must be contemporaneous with the alleged reduction to practice and should clearly show that the invention works as intended. Mere speculation or theoretical calculations are generally insufficient to prove reduction to practice.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
Sufficient evidence of reduction to practice is crucial in patent law, especially when establishing priority or defending against challenges. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on what constitutes adequate evidence:
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he or she constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim, and (2) he or she determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
Sufficient evidence typically includes:
- Detailed laboratory notebooks or records documenting the invention’s development and testing
- Witness testimony corroborating the inventor’s activities
- Physical prototypes or samples of the invention
- Test results demonstrating the invention’s functionality
- Dated and signed documents describing the invention
It’s important to note that the evidence must be contemporaneous with the alleged reduction to practice and should clearly show that the invention works as intended. Mere speculation or theoretical calculations are generally insufficient to prove reduction to practice.
To learn more: