What constitutes conception of an invention?
Conception is a critical element in determining inventorship. The MPEP provides guidance on what constitutes conception: “The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. … Insofar as defining an inventor is concerned, reduction to practice, per se,…
Read MoreWhat is the “rule of reason” in determining conception in patent law?
What is the “rule of reason” in determining conception in patent law? The “rule of reason” is a principle applied by courts when evaluating evidence of conception in patent cases. According to MPEP 2138.04, “An inventor’s testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove conception unless it is corroborated, a rule that the courts have recognized…
Read MoreIs reduction to practice necessary to be considered an inventor?
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…
Read MoreHow does reduction to practice affect the determination of inventorship?
Reduction to practice plays a crucial role in determining inventorship, particularly in cases of competing inventors. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on this matter: “The inventor of the subject matter of a patent is presumed to be the individual or individuals named as inventors in the patent. In order to rebut this presumption, clear and…
Read MoreCan the actions of a non-inventor contribute to reduction to practice?
Yes, under certain circumstances, the actions of a non-inventor can contribute to reduction to practice through a concept known as “inurement.” Inurement allows the acts of another person to accrue to the benefit of the inventor. According to MPEP 2138.05, for a non-inventor’s recognition of the utility of the invention to inure to the benefit…
Read MoreWhat is required for conception to be legally complete?
For conception to be legally complete, several elements must be present according to MPEP 2138.04: Definite and permanent idea: The inventor must have formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operable invention. Every feature of the invention: The conception must include every feature or limitation of the invention as claimed. Enablement: The…
Read MoreWhat is the legal definition of “conception” in patent law?
According to MPEP 2138.04, conception in patent law is defined as “the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act” and “the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice.” This definition comes…
Read MoreDoes an inventor need to know their invention will work for conception to be complete?
No, an inventor does not need to know that their invention will work for conception to be legally complete. According to MPEP 2138.04, the inventor’s belief in the success of the invention is not a requirement for conception. The MPEP cites the following case: “Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228,…
Read MoreHow is an invention “made” according to patent law?
In patent law, an invention is considered “made” when two key elements are present: conception and reduction to practice. The MPEP 2138.02 cites a specific case to define this: “An invention is made when there is a conception and a reduction to practice. Dunn v. Ragin, 50 USPQ 472, 474 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1941).” This…
Read MoreWhat is interference practice and how does it relate to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)?
Interference practice is a legal proceeding used to determine priority of invention between two or more parties claiming the same patentable invention. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) forms the basis for interference practice. The MPEP states: This section of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 forms a basis for interference practice. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for more information…
Read More