Patent Inventorship is Important

Patent Inventorship is Important

In patent law, making sure that all the correct inventors are named in a patent application is critical to the validity of the patent.  If an inventor is incorrectly included, or if an inventor is omitted from the list of named inventors, it can result in a patent being found invalid and thus unenforceable.  

This happened recently to Fortress Iron, LP (“Fortress”).  This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Fortress in Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc.,.  The case involved a couple of issued patents directed to a vertical railing panel that could be purchased as a pre-assembled panel.  The idea was initially developed in 2013 by two Fortress employees in the U.S.  However, the initial design had issues relating to rotation of the panel during tensioning of the cables.  Fortress works with two Chinese companies, a manufacturing company and a quality control company to produce its products.  An employee from the manufacturing company and an employee for the quality control company worked with Fortress to revise the railing panel design to alleviate the rotation during tensioning.  

After a final design was completed, Fortress applied and obtained two patents for its vertical railing panel.  Both Fortress employees were named as inventors but neither the manufacturing company employee nor the quality control company employee were named as inventors.  In 2016, the quality control employee involved in the design of the railing panel left his employment and did not provide a forwarding address.

In 2021, Fortress sued Digger Specialties Inc. (“Digger”) for patent infringement of the two patents directed to the vertical railing panel.  During the lawsuit, it was discovered that the two Chinese employees were omitted from the patents when they should have been included.  Moreover, Fortress could not amend the patent to include the quality control employee because he left no forwarding address after his employment and could not be found.  

The appeals court ruled that because Fortress was not able to name him as an inventor, the patents were invalid.  Fortress was unable to assert its infringement claim against Digger because the patents were no longer valid and thus unenforceable.

What’s the takeaway here?  Patent inventorship is an important consideration when filing for a patent.  Inventorship is defined as a person who has contributed to the conception of the invention.  Conception has been described as someone who has a definite idea of the complete invention.  Because the claims of a patent define the invention, an inventor is anyone who has contributed to the conception of at least one claim in the patent.  Failure to include an inventor or including a non-inventor can jeopardize the validity of your issued patent.  

Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization.  Having the right person to help you make that decision is important.  The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game.   The first consultation is free.  Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.

U.S. Patent Office Waives Fee For AI Search Automated Pilot Program

U.S. Patent Office Waives Fee For AI Search Automated Pilot Program

A patentability search and assessment is always recommended when evaluating whether your invention would be entitled to meaningful patent protection. The search also helps to inform the inventor and patent attorney where there may be areas of more narrow protection and draft accordingly.

The United States Patent Office recently launched the AI Search Automated Pilot Program. The program is designed to evaluate the examination process by including an automated pre-examination search, and whether the inclusion will improve quality and efficiency of examinations.

The program (ASAP!) will conduct an automated search for original, noncontinuing, nonprovisional applications. The automated search results will be sent to the applicant and will provide an earlier communication regarding potential prior art issues. Under the pilot program, applicants will not be required to respond to the search results.

However, the search results may provide an opportunity to the applicant to file a preliminary amendment in an effort to place the application in a stronger position for allowance. Alternatively, the applicant may wish to file an express abandonment and obtain a fee refund in view of search results that indicate a lack of patentability.

Recently, the U.S. Patent Office has announced that it is waiving the fee requirement for any petition to participate under 37 C.F.R. 1.182 filed after March 23, 2026. This should enable self filing entrepreneurs and inventors to take advantage of this new program for free!

Capitalizing on innovative developments is critical to any organization.  Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important.  The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game.   The first consultation is free.  Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.

Photo by Szorstki on FreeImages