confirmatory assignment patent

• Ten Questions about Confirmatory Assignments

1. Depending upon the applicable IP rights and related law of contract of the jurisdiction, to what extent can an unwritten agreement validly assign IP rights? 2. Assuming that an unwritten assigment is valid, what is the evidentiary showing that is required? 3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? 4. Is the evidentiary showing different in connection with establishing the validity of the assignment in the context of a transaction? 5. How can a purchaser receive sufficient comfort about the validity of the assignment, or is it a matter of risk allocation depending upon the positon of the parties? 6. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ once again in the context of a court proceeding? 7. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ yet again iin the context of taxation? 8. Is a confirmatory assignment a form of ratification? 9. If it not a form of ratification, what is the proper legal characterization for the agreement? 10. In light of all of the foregoing, does the confirmatory assignment confer any benefit to the parties, other evidentiary or substantive?

13 comments:

Confirmatory assignments are frequently used where a written assignment already exists, but the parties do not want to disclose that document because it contains sensitive information (e.g. payments, etc.). In addition, they are often used to confirm an 'automatic' assignment (e.g. from an employee to his/her employer). The latter may be useful, for example, when submitting a US application with UK inventors.

In the United States, this is a statutory question: "Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing." 35 USC Section 261. Your questions are far more interesting as applied to licenses or servitudes more generally. Based on hundreds of years of common law, one would imagine that all personal property, including patents, would require encumbrances to be publicly recorded for them to be enforceable on subsequent purchasers for value without actual notice. In fact, equitable servitudes on personal property were not enforceable at all at common law. As far as I can tell, patents present a unique exception to this history. For that reason I have wondered whether it is fair even to call patents property -- despite their being deemed so by statute. On my view, this is the most underappreciated obstacle to the emergence of a healthy market for patents. Lemley and Myhrvold suggested years ago a solution to the problem -- namely, of requiring the public disclosure of all assignments and licenses. That seems to have gone nowhere thanks to an incomplete understanding by current stakeholders of how such a transition would result in an entirely new market equilibrium, or at least to the general desire for incremental rather than radical changes to the status quo.

Confirmatory assignments are commonly used to record assignments in writing where the commercial terms of an assignment are to remain confidential. I cannot think of many instances where I would be happy to rely on a written confirmation of an unwritten assignment. It is my understanding that in most common law countries an assignment must be in writing for it to be legally effective, otherwise at best your unwritten assignment may only transfer an equitable interest in the relevant IP. A type of assignment document I have occasionally seen and used is the assignment that is both operative and confirmatory. In other words, "I confirm that I assigned, but if that assignment wasn't legally effective for any reason then I hereby assign". It isn't ideal, but sometimes it's the only way to fix a break in the chain of title when you really don’t think you can rely on that unwritten assignment.

3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? Yes, that is possible in certain jurisdictions. At the most you would need a date of assignment and particulars of the assignee and the assignor. The relevant forms necessary to record the assignment are prepared by the agents and signed on behalf of the assignee. Example, Singapore

Rob hit the nail on the head. They are used to simplify matters in circumstances where the parties may have been better to have signed short-form agreemnts. A party will often not want to disclose a document with all of the juicy commercial terms, so a confirmatory assignment may be used. A final (arguably erroneous) use may be where a party has, to settle a matter, assigned a CTM under cover of a letter or unilateral agreement signed only by the owner. In the case of a CTM, the assignment has to be signed by both parties to be valid. Therefore, whilst the mark may be assigned in the head of the previous owner, something more needs to be done to validly assign. Arguably the follow-up is not confirmatory in those circumstances, but I've seen the document that followed described as confirmatory.

Associated with the issue of confirmatory assignments is the issue of assignment documents with a purported "effective date" earlier than the date of execution of the document. In jurisdictions where rights in an application can only be assigned in writing, the writing requirement was then not fulfilled as at the "effective date". This may be particularly important in relation to priority claims.

I have seen such Confirmatory Assignments used as evidence supporting a transfer request before the EPO, but it wasn't my job to question them even though the whole procedure looked quite fishy to me. Once upon a time there was a nice little company A which got gobbled by company B. One year later, company B was in turn purchased lock, stock and barrel by company C. A, B and C were in three different countries. A's European representative kept prosecuting the EP cases, but only bothered to file a transfer request when a given application was just about to mature into a grant, providing in most cases a confirmatory assignment drafted by an US notary public as evidence. The document stated that A's IP was transferred to three entities Ca, Cb and Cc, which are all presumably 100% subsidiaries of C. I infer that the applications are jointly owned by all three companies. The assignment is signed by Ca, Cb and Cc's officers as well as the notary. The document couldn't have been signed by A's officers, since A did not exist anymore at that point. There is no mention whatsoever of company B either , so the document did not describe what actually happened, since A could never have dealt directly with C. The representative's cover letter only requests transfer to company Ca, leaving Cb and Cc out of the picture, and Ca is the only name entered in the EPO's register. I googled up a bit and I found out that B wrote in its ultimate annual that it now owned all of B's IP, and C later stated in its own annual report that B's IP was now located in yet another subsidiary Cd, different from Ca, Cb or Cc. In one case the Umschreibestelle questioned the confirmatory assignment in that in only bore the signature of one of the parties. The representative adamantly replied that the assignment should be taken at face value and that's it. The EPO did not insist, and took down the transfer - in Ca's name only. In one of the applications this examiner was bone-headed enough to be minded to consider a refusal, prompting the representative to file a "divisional" application in order to keep the show going. The weird thing was that the "divisional" was in A's name, even though it no longer existed for years. The new application was eventually abandoned, so all the interesting questions which arose did not need to be answered. From the preceding, I think I'd start kicking and yelling about who actually owns a patent (and thus entitled to initiate action) if I were ever dragged before court in an infringement action where a confirmatory assignment was involved. The standard for proving a transfer of rights appears to be much lower as to the right to transfer of an opposition. A confirmatory assignment may appear a practical shortcut, but it could be a false saving. As to the argument that a confirmatory assignment can keep details secret, I don't think they're worth the risk either. I've seen IP sale contracts accepted as evidence for a transfer before the EPO where more black ink was poured to obscure passages than the CIA ever used when declassifying a document. BTW, one of these contracts involved yet another of C's subsidiries transferring its IP to numbered entities conveniently located in tax flexible territories.

Thanks for all of your great comments. In one off-site communication on the topic yesterday, I suggested that confirmatory assignments are among the "dirty little secrets" of IP practice. She wrote back that in fact they are the "dity little not-so-secrets" of IP. I suspect that we are both right.

Something that does not appear to be widely appreciated is that the box for the date of agreement on EPO Form 1002 is provided for the convenience of the applicant only, there being no requirement in the EPC to provide a date. I have often filed forms with no date where the information was not available, and no objection has ever been raised. I have only seen this explicitly stated in the answer to question 80 in Dr. Günter Gall's classic book for EQE candidates "European & International patent applications: questions and answers" [ISBN 0-85121-555-6; 1989 edition]. Dr Günter Gall was a Director of the EPO and evidently wrote with authority. I have had more knowledgeable inventors query the appropriateness of signing any sort of assignment of rights that he doesn't own because the invention belongs to the employer by virtue of UK law, and have then had to explain the USA [for example] doesn't recognise this aspect of UK law. Such assignments made in respect of a first filing are certainly useful when subsequently filing in the USA if the inventor is no longer contactable or become uncooperative, eg due to imminent redundancy.

Anonymous' knowledgeable inventors have a point, and this has always been my rationale for obtaining confirmatory assignments. It must surely be a fundamental principle that one cannot assign what one does not own, so a written assignment from an employee to an employer that already owns the invention by terms of a contract of employment must surely be void. The problem is not solved by writing the employment contract in such a way as to place the employee under an obligation to assign, because a subsequent assignment to another party, while being a breach of contract, will not necessarily enable the invention to be reclaimed by the employer (see, eg Stanford v Roche 583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As I understand it, the US law relating to employee inventions is basically the common law. The issue is not that the USPTO will not recognise that the employer owns the invention, rather it is the specific requirement that the inventor assign the rights reflected in the particular patent application, ie that a suitable assignment cannot be completed until the inventor has the actual filed specification and claims before her. A general assignment of the invention, and all notional future rights, will not suffice for this purpose. However, an assignment of a PCT application designating the US is fine (although it may take a little effort to persuade the USPTO to accept a document that is not in its standard form). An unavailable or uncooperative inventor remains problematic even if you have a suitable assignment document, because the USPTO cannot accept the filed application until it has an inventor's declaration, or a petition has been granted to allow the application to be accepted without the signed declaration. Though not a US attorney, for my sins I have found myself with clients in this situation, and it can be a lot of work to resolve.

"This and the related topic of failure to agree or document assignment of IPRs arise all too frequently. I have been faced with the challenge of "I paid, so I own" throughout my career. Here are 10 thoughts on this topic: 1. No one should believe that the law will come to their rescue if they do not document a written assignment and have it signed by the assignor and the assignee. 2. Assignments of IPRs are a perfect example of lack of global harmonisation. There is huge discrepancy between national laws as to what formalities are required - few require more than a written assignment signed by both parties. 3. The greatest density of disputes is between consultants and the corporations who hire them. The expectation is that IPRs in the "work product" automatically transfer. Big mistake. 4. English law enjoys equity, and can be persuaded to find an intention to assign (aka an equitable assignment). Hoping for this result is a lottery. In other parts of Europe, the odds are worse. 5. The position is not as random within an employee/employer relationship, because generally the first owner is the employer. However, at the edges ("course of employment") it is well worth documenting the position. In this context, do not assume that ownership is the end of the matter. Always think about attribution issues (such as moral rights) and economic reward (for exceptional contribution). 6. Failure to document the IPR position is statistically likely to create a significant commercial issue downstream. I have personally seen IPOs delayed, joint ventures stall and tens of disputes that frustrate and delay commercial exploitation. 7. The consolation prize in an ownership dispute is typically a licence. Within this one word, is a world of pain as the parties debate scope (field of use), term (for a project to perpetual), ambit (exclusive to non-exclusive), not to mention royalty. So whilst ownership is undoubtedly first place, bottom of the class will not get much at all. 8. Banks and investors still struggle to understand and value IPRs in the same way as tangible assets such as property and stock, so they scare easily. If chain of title and ownership is not clear, expect them to have significant concerns in all other areas such as validity and infringement. 9. Joint ownership looks like a good compromise. Normally it isn't. There is no global uniformity on the rights conferred on joint owners - and even within a jurisdiction it's different between the various IPRs. 10. Which means that I'm normally just so relieved to receive a confirmatory assignment, that I seldom have the energy to think about Neil's 10 questions - but now I will!"

Many interesting comments on assignments. Here is a further related issue, perhaps basic compared to a confirmatory assignment under the original fact pattern. Assume the inventor has executed an assignment to her employer for a US provisional patent application that includes assignment of all later applications, using standard language regarding assigning international applications, US, non-US applications. The assignment properly assigns the right to claim priority. Then a PCT application is timely filed that claims priority to this provisional. The PCT application includes new disclosure in the specification, including new examples, and new claims. Is a second assignment needed or does the assignment of the provisional suffice? For all jurisdictions? If a new assignment is needed, how is it worded to avoid the issue of 're-assigning' what has already been assigned in the provisional assignment? Seems one can only assign rights one has not already assigned away.

In answer to the last comment, yes, a new assignment is needed. An assignment has to relate to an invention, and if that invention is new, it cannot have been previously assigned. Equitably, yes, but then we argue over whether the new invention is actually covered.

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment. It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow. Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!

How many page-views has the IPKat received?

Not just any old ipkat ....

Get the Kat in your Inbox!

The kat that tweets current followers: 22.9k.

Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn

Follow the IPKat on Facebook

Follow the ipkat on reddit.

The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

• ►  August 2024 (25)
• ►  July 2024 (41)
• ►  June 2024 (39)
• ►  May 2024 (35)
• ►  April 2024 (40)
• ►  March 2024 (38)
• ►  February 2024 (37)
• ►  January 2024 (40)
• ►  December 2023 (48)
• ►  November 2023 (40)
• ►  October 2023 (39)
• ►  September 2023 (39)
• ►  August 2023 (36)
• ►  July 2023 (37)
• ►  June 2023 (40)
• ►  May 2023 (46)
• ►  April 2023 (44)
• ►  March 2023 (34)
• ►  February 2023 (39)
• ►  January 2023 (36)
• ►  December 2022 (30)
• ►  November 2022 (35)
• ►  October 2022 (35)
• ►  September 2022 (34)
• ►  August 2022 (24)
• ►  July 2022 (21)
• ►  June 2022 (24)
• ►  May 2022 (24)
• ►  April 2022 (26)
• ►  March 2022 (26)
• ►  February 2022 (39)
• ►  January 2022 (42)
• ►  December 2021 (40)
• ►  November 2021 (40)
• ►  October 2021 (34)
• ►  September 2021 (37)
• ►  August 2021 (36)
• ►  July 2021 (39)
• ►  June 2021 (25)
• ►  May 2021 (40)
• ►  April 2021 (35)
• ►  March 2021 (36)
• ►  February 2021 (28)
• ►  January 2021 (41)
• ►  December 2020 (47)
• ►  November 2020 (37)
• ►  October 2020 (40)
• ►  September 2020 (42)
• ►  August 2020 (44)
• ►  July 2020 (56)
• ►  June 2020 (48)
• ►  May 2020 (50)
• ►  April 2020 (52)
• ►  March 2020 (58)
• ►  February 2020 (54)
• ►  January 2020 (62)
• ►  December 2019 (45)
• ►  November 2019 (60)
• ►  October 2019 (66)
• ►  September 2019 (58)
• ►  August 2019 (54)
• ►  July 2019 (60)
• ►  June 2019 (60)
• ►  May 2019 (66)
• ►  April 2019 (74)
• ►  March 2019 (67)
• ►  February 2019 (69)
• ►  January 2019 (68)
• ►  December 2018 (50)
• ►  November 2018 (42)
• ►  October 2018 (47)
• ►  September 2018 (31)
• ►  August 2018 (29)
• ►  July 2018 (28)
• ►  June 2018 (37)
• ►  May 2018 (44)
• ►  April 2018 (44)
• ►  March 2018 (60)
• ►  February 2018 (58)
• ►  January 2018 (54)
• ►  December 2017 (44)
• ►  November 2017 (61)
• ►  October 2017 (68)
• ►  September 2017 (38)
• ►  August 2017 (30)
• ►  July 2017 (57)
• ►  June 2017 (62)
• ►  May 2017 (57)
• ►  April 2017 (53)
• ►  March 2017 (53)
• ►  February 2017 (41)
• ►  January 2017 (35)
• ►  December 2016 (55)
• ►  November 2016 (45)
• ►  October 2016 (44)
• ►  September 2016 (61)
• ►  August 2016 (33)
• ►  July 2016 (38)
• ►  June 2016 (47)
• ►  May 2016 (62)
• ►  April 2016 (62)
• ►  March 2016 (63)
• ►  February 2016 (41)
• ►  January 2016 (47)
• ►  December 2015 (57)
• ►  November 2015 (76)
• ►  October 2015 (71)
• ►  September 2015 (60)
• ►  August 2015 (69)
• ►  July 2015 (74)
• ►  June 2015 (72)
• ►  May 2015 (67)
• ►  April 2015 (65)
• ►  March 2015 (93)
• ►  February 2015 (73)
• ►  January 2015 (87)
• ►  December 2014 (89)
• ►  November 2014 (58)
• ►  October 2014 (73)
• ►  September 2014 (78)
• ►  August 2014 (68)
• ►  July 2014 (73)
• ►  June 2014 (76)
• ►  May 2014 (72)
• ►  April 2014 (69)
• ►  March 2014 (67)
• ►  February 2014 (78)
• ►  January 2014 (78)
• ►  December 2013 (64)
• ►  November 2013 (78)
• ►  October 2013 (72)
• ►  September 2013 (54)
• ►  August 2013 (57)
• ►  July 2013 (72)
• ►  June 2013 (56)
• ►  May 2013 (63)
• ►  April 2013 (73)
• ►  March 2013 (62)
• ►  February 2013 (55)
• ►  January 2013 (62)
• ►  December 2012 (48)
• ►  November 2012 (77)
• ►  October 2012 (69)
• ►  September 2012 (65)
• ►  August 2012 (56)
• ►  July 2012 (70)
• ►  June 2012 (68)
• ►  May 2012 (61)
• ►  April 2012 (70)
• ►  March 2012 (78)
• ►  February 2012 (81)
• ►  January 2012 (81)
• ►  December 2011 (66)
• ►  November 2011 (69)
• ►  October 2011 (62)
• ►  September 2011 (43)
• ►  August 2011 (61)
• ►  July 2011 (68)
• ►  June 2011 (61)
• ►  May 2011 (63)
• ►  April 2011 (68)
• ►  March 2011 (76)
• ►  February 2011 (66)
• ►  January 2011 (64)
• ►  December 2010 (74)
• ►  November 2010 (60)
• ►  October 2010 (67)
• ►  September 2010 (60)
• ►  August 2010 (64)
• Invisible goods
• Breaking news: Vodkat appeal dismissed
• Friday fantasies
• Inbev loses Budweiser CTM appeal
• Schlumberger v EMGS: A Non-Obvious Marriage of Skills
• A press-ing problem
• Wednesday whimsies
• A blueprint to nurture the creatives: it takes Bra...
• The definite Article?
• If you think software patents are a pain, try soft...
• Do poor people like different patents to rich people?
• Monday miscellany
• Letter from AmeriKat - Hot News - too hot to handle?
• Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave?
• The bare facts and the Naked truth
• EPO: hearings in "broccoli and tomato cases"
• Never mind the golden rabbits, what about the Gold...
• New German court to try chocolate rabbit disputes
• This bunny (litigation) never dies
• Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby (Justice St...
• Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice St...
• EPO: English version of notice concerning communic...
• Some culinary IP news....
• Another referral to the EBO: Allowability of discl...
• All threats, no action ...
• New referral to the EBO: until when can a correcti...
• The Branding Summer of our Content and Discontent
• Azzurri take aim at "creaking" patent system
• DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too
• Added matter, intermediate generalisation and a go...
• Becker match goes to a fifth set
• Two outstanding competitions: a Kat apologises
• England's new shirt sponsors?
• When a School Boy's Trick Meets Strangers in a Tra...
• Portakabin ruling: a bad result for trade mark own...
• An IP system for the 21st Century: Gurry speaks
• Odd Couple challenge Digital Economy Act
• "You say vuvuzela, I say lepatata ..."
• Cracking Ideas and a day to remember
• Importing non-UK decoders into the EU: a multiplic...
• Monsanto: court makes a meal of soya ruling
• A PET aversion? Biorenewable monomers take centre ...
• EPO implicated in Golden Balls dispute
• Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
• Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
• Is rebranding the key to reversing BlackBerry's fo...
• Old woman rebranded in wonder makeover
• The EQE "Pre-Exam" - Who Needs It?
• Heartache for heartburn drugmaker, though court sw...
• A map, a copyright dispute and the Bundesverfassun...
• ►  June 2010 (57)
• ►  May 2010 (61)
• ►  April 2010 (75)
• ►  March 2010 (63)
• ►  February 2010 (50)
• ►  January 2010 (54)
• ►  December 2009 (50)
• ►  November 2009 (70)
• ►  October 2009 (58)
• ►  September 2009 (49)
• ►  August 2009 (55)
• ►  July 2009 (59)
• ►  June 2009 (57)
• ►  May 2009 (40)
• ►  April 2009 (51)
• ►  March 2009 (61)
• ►  February 2009 (56)
• ►  January 2009 (60)
• ►  December 2008 (53)
• ►  November 2008 (66)
• ►  October 2008 (60)
• ►  September 2008 (52)
• ►  August 2008 (56)
• ►  July 2008 (60)
• ►  June 2008 (74)
• ►  May 2008 (78)
• ►  April 2008 (72)
• ►  March 2008 (70)
• ►  February 2008 (59)
• ►  January 2008 (75)
• ►  December 2007 (55)
• ►  November 2007 (71)
• ►  October 2007 (64)
• ►  September 2007 (54)
• ►  August 2007 (51)
• ►  July 2007 (77)
• ►  June 2007 (75)
• ►  May 2007 (76)
• ►  April 2007 (62)
• ►  March 2007 (92)
• ►  February 2007 (84)
• ►  January 2007 (83)
• ►  December 2006 (59)
• ►  November 2006 (74)
• ►  October 2006 (57)
• ►  September 2006 (52)
• ►  August 2006 (53)
• ►  July 2006 (61)
• ►  June 2006 (60)
• ►  May 2006 (66)
• ►  April 2006 (64)
• ►  March 2006 (83)
• ►  February 2006 (59)
• ►  January 2006 (78)
• ►  December 2005 (65)
• ►  November 2005 (68)
• ►  October 2005 (56)
• ►  September 2005 (68)
• ►  August 2005 (70)
• ►  July 2005 (74)
• ►  June 2005 (90)
• ►  May 2005 (79)
• ►  April 2005 (84)
• ►  March 2005 (63)
• ►  February 2005 (70)
• ►  January 2005 (83)
• ►  December 2004 (81)
• ►  November 2004 (95)
• ►  October 2004 (81)
• ►  September 2004 (66)
• ►  August 2004 (43)
• ►  July 2004 (63)
• ►  June 2004 (49)
• ►  May 2004 (49)
• ►  April 2004 (46)
• ►  March 2004 (61)
• ►  February 2004 (40)
• ►  January 2004 (59)
• ►  December 2003 (57)
• ►  November 2003 (62)
• ►  October 2003 (52)
• ►  September 2003 (58)
• ►  August 2003 (73)
• ►  July 2003 (40)

Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence

Subscribe to the ipkat's posts by email here, feed me ipkat.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

The ipkat's cousins: some ip-friendly blogs for you, out for the count....

Considerations for Patent Assignments After Minerva Ruling

• Post author By Austen Zuege

By Austen Zuege & Benjamin Edlavitch

A version of this article about patent assignments and assignor estoppel appeared in an online magazine on August 4, 2021 as intellectual property “expert analysis”.

Introduction

For many decades, the terms and content of patent assignments have been relatively uncontroversial.  However, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. established that assignor estoppel will apply to some assignments but not others. [i]   Consequently, the execution of an assignment of patent rights is now potentially more contentious than before.  Parties to an assignment may now wish to scrutinize the terms of an assignment document as well as the factual context around the execution of an assignment that may give rise to implied terms.  What follows is an analysis of practical considerations for a patent assignment, including sample assignment clauses that might be negotiated, in light of Minerva . 

Minerva reaffirmed the doctrine of assignor estoppel but limited its scope to what an assignor represents in assigning patent rights.  The assignor is estopped from challenging the validity of the patent when the “assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations” the assignor made. [ii] A key aspect of the Court’s holding involved determining the scope of “implicit representations” that result in assignor estoppel. 

The Minerva Decision

Inventor Truckai had assigned patent applications to Novacept, Inc., which was later acquired by Hologic, Inc. [iii]   Afterwards, Truckai founded Minerva Surgical, Inc., and Hologic sued Minerva for patent infringement on resulting patents. [iv]   Hologic argued that assignor estoppel barred Minerva from arguing the patents were invalid and the district court and the Federal Circuit both found that assignor estoppel barred the defendant from pursuing invalidity defenses. [v]  The Court vacated and remanded the case in a 5-4 ruling and explained that “the limits of the assignor’s estoppel go only so far as, and not beyond, what he represented in assigning the patent application.” [vi]   Therefore, “if Hologic’s new claim is materially broader than the ones Truckai assigned, then Truckai could not have warranted its validity in making the assignment” and, thus, “there is no basis for estoppel.” [vii]

The Court outlined a total of three examples where assignor estoppel does not apply.  “One example . . . is when the assignment occurs before an inventor can possibly make a warranty of validity as to specific patent claims.  Consider a common employment arrangement.   An employee assigns to his employer patent rights in any future inventions he develops during his employment; the employer then decides which, if any, of those inventions to patent.  In that scenario, the assignment contains no representation that a patent is valid.  How could it?  The invention itself has not come into being.” [viii]     “A second example is when a later legal development renders irrelevant the warranty given at the time of assignment.” [ix]   Thirdly, a post-assignment change in patent claim scope in which the “new claims are materially broader than the old claims” does not trigger assignor estoppel. [x]   This last example was the situation alleged in Minerva : materially broader continuation claims filed after execution of the assignment were not subject to assignor estoppel because the Court held there was no implied warranty of validity. [xi]   While the majority opinion helpfully gave a few examples of circumstances that would or would not give rise to an implied warranty, they are hardly exhaustive and do not reach some fairly common assignment scenarios, leaving some ambiguity. [xii]  

Practical Considerations and Possible Assignment Clauses

Almost all of the factors that determine whether assignor estoppel will apply may be within the control of the parties to an assignment.  It may be possible to include explicit terms in the assignment document in order to avoid later dispute about what was or was not implied by circumstances of execution.  The question becomes, what are the sorts of terms that assignors and assignees may now wish to consider?  The following are simply examples; particular parties will have different interests and their relative bargaining power will of course vary from one situation to the next.  Though as discussed below the enforceability of certain terms should not be assumed in all scenarios. 

Assignees will now have motivations to try to add clauses to employment and services agreements establishing assignment obligations with some or all of the following additional terms: assignment timing requirements ( i.e. , after assignor estoppel attaches), requirements for non-quitclaim assignment or warranty of validity requirements, and express no-challenge clauses.  For example, if an assignee’s claims are materially broadened, then the assignor could not have warranted the claims’ validity at the time of the assignment and there is no basis for assignor estoppel, as the Court held in Minerva . [xiii]  Assignees seeking to acquire patent rights on a stand-alone basis will now have reasons to do one or more of the following: add an express warranty of validity or a no-challenge clause to an assignment, obtain a further post-grant warranty of validity (especially if any claim is materially broader), obtain a new assignment with each continuation or divisional application having materially different claims (especially any broader claims), and include a choice of law provision.  The following are sample clauses that might be used to pursue assignee objectives:

I hereby waive all my rights to challenge validity of said invention in the United States and its territorial possessions and in all foreign countries and of all Letters Patent or similar legal protection in the United States and its territorial possessions and in any and all foreign countries to be obtained for said invention by said application or any continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, renewal, substitute, or reissue thereof or any legal equivalent thereof in a foreign country for the full term or terms for which the same may be granted. [No-challenge clause for stand-alone assignment]

I hereby waive all my rights to challenge validity of any and all inventions which I may solely or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of time I am in the employ of the Company in the United States and its territorial possessions and in all foreign countries (collectively, “the Invention(s)”) and of all Letters Patent or similar legal protection in the United States and its territorial possessions and in any and all foreign countries to be obtained for the Invention(s) by any application or any continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, renewal, substitute, or reissue thereof or any legal equivalent thereof in a foreign country for the full term or terms for which the same may be granted. [No-challenge clause for employment agreement]

Assignors (including employee-inventors [xiv] ) will now have greater reasons to question and push back against terms present in—or missing from—assignee-supplied assignment forms.  As the Supreme Court put it, assignor estoppel “raises the price of patent assignments.” [xv]   For example, assignors will have reasons to demand one or more of the following: insist upon only a quitclaim assignment [xvi] or language expressly denying any warranty of validity, inserting a clause that assignor estoppel shall not apply, sign an assignment only with regard to a patent application lacking claims, [xvii] refuse to sign any “confirmatory” assignment that gives rise to a new warranty, and  negotiate additional consideration ( e.g. , larger payment, bonus(es), a raise in base compensation, promotion in job title, etc.) if an assignee expects any express or implied warranty.  The following are sample clauses that might be used to pursue some of those assignor objectives:

I hereby make this assignment without representation or warranty as to patentability or validity of said invention. [No Warranty of Validity]

It is possible that an assignor could unilaterally write-in additional terms into an assignment form prepared by the assignee, given that only the assignor conventionally signs an assignment under U.S. law. [xviii]   Assignees might be faced with scenarios where further consideration is required to subsequently “undo” terms unilaterally written-in by the assignor if consideration was already paid—giving rise to assignees withholding payment until the executed assignment (free from unilateral modifications) is delivered.   

Given that assignors and assignees may have widely divergent interests, with each seeking to receive more in exchange for less, there may be a need to reach a compromise with regard to assignment terms.  For example, one or more of the following terms might be agreed to: explicitly spell out what due diligence has or has not been performed and expressly include a partial warranty of validity limited to actual knowledge and due diligence activities and/or include express language that assignor estoppel is limited only to validity challenges based on the law as it exists at the time and/or only to prior art of which the assignor was actually aware at the time (putting the obligation on the assignee to inform the assignor of all material prior art). [xix]   The following are sample clauses that might be used to pursue some of those compromise objectives:

After performing due diligence, I hereby warrant and represent my belief in the validity of the specific claims presented to me as of the Effective Date of this Assignment to define said invention only with regard to prior art actually known to me as of the Effective Date and only with regard to patent statues, regulations, case law, and any other controlling authorities in effect as of the Effective Date, but this warranty does not extend to any other patent claims that are materially broader than the specific claims presented to me as of the Effective Date, and I hereby accept no liability for any finding of unpatentability or invalidity by any competent authority; and [Partial Warranty of Validity]

I agree, upon payment of a reasonable fee, to conduct further due diligence with respect to any materially broader claim and to make a similar warranty and representation of my belief in validity of that materially broader claim if, in my discretion, such a warranty and representation is justified by all of the facts and information available to me at that time. [Promise to Make Future Warranties for a Reasonable Fee]

Enforceability Considerations

The enforceability and effectiveness of warranties of validity and related contractual clauses present a number of other issues.  Among those is the need for consideration in order for an assignment to constitute a valid contract. [xx]   This is where an inventor bonus program could be useful—a bonus could be provided as consideration for an assignment and an explicit warranty, or even just for the warranty alone. 

Obligations to assign, such as in employment agreements, are subject to state (or foreign) law. [xxi]   But obligations to assign do not necessarily also create an obligationto warrant as to validity.  A party under an obligation to assign might therefore refuse to provide a warranty of validity absent receipt of further consideration.  And the enforceability of an employment agreement or master services agreement that purports to impose a prospective obligation to warrant validity of an invention not yet conceived is a question distinct from the enforceability of prospective obligations to assign, and may need to be sorted out by courts.

To even further complicate things, it has been suggested that a confirmatory assignment could create a warranty of validity that did not attach to an earlier assignment. [xxii]   That position seems doubtful, though it turns on the particular language used.  A true “confirmatory” assignment merely acknowledges (confirms) a prior assignment, perhaps curing technical defects such as to fix a typo, add missing information needed to accommodate recordation requirements in particular jurisdictions, or to omit sensitive price information in a publicly recorded version.  If the prior assignment contained no warranty of validity, express or implied, then merely confirming that prior (warranty-less) assignment creates no new warranty.  That would be especially true for nunc pro tunc assignments that relate back to the effective date of an earlier warranty-less assignment.  Many assignments include boilerplate language about further writings to effectuate the transfer in the event of a technical defect or barrier to recordability.  But if a new warranty is expressly (or implicitly) added to a purportedly “confirmatory” assignment, then the assignment is not really (or not merely) a confirmatory assignment and there must be consideration for the new warranty term—continued employment alone would not be sufficient consideration in some states. [xxiii]  

The execution of an assignment of patent rights is now potentially more contentious than before.  However, it seems that amending an assignment in light of Minerva may reduce disputes subsequent to its execution.

Have an invention you would like to patent? Have a brand you would like to register as a trademark? Concerned about infringing someone else’s intellectual property? Is someone else infringing your IP? Need representation in an IP dispute? Austen is a patent attorney / trademark attorney who can help. These and other IP issues are his area of expertise. Contact Austen today to discuss.

[i] U.S. No. 20–440 (June 29, 2021). 

[ii] Id. Slip Op. at 1.

[iii] Id. at 2-3.

[iv] Id. at 3.

[v] Id. at 3-4.

[vi] Id. at 16.

[viii] Id. at 15.

[x] Id. at 15-16.

[xi] Id. at 16-17.

[xii] There are also ambiguities in the Court’s decision that stem from shifting terminology.  For instance, are (granted) “patent claim(s)” = (pending) patent application claim(s) “presented” to the USPTO = (unfiled) claims prepared by assignee’s attorney = (unfiled) claims prepared by assignor or assignor’s attorney?  A “patent claim” is not necessarily synonymous with a “patent application claim”.  An assignment knowingly executed while a pending patent application claim stands rejected might arguably carry no warranty, though Minerva does not explicitly address such a scenario. 

[xiv] See Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys. , Inc. , 563 U.S. 776, 786 (2011) (“In most circumstances, an inventor must expressly grant his rights in an invention to his employer if the employer is to obtain those rights.”); Banks v. Unisys Corp . , 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment.”).

[xv] Minerva , Slip Op. at 14,n.4.   

[xvi] See, e.g., Van Renesselaer v. Kearney , 52 U.S. 297, 322 (1851); Black’s Law Dictionary 503 (10th ed. 2014) (quitclaim deed is one that “conveys a grantor’s complete interest or claim in certain real property but that neither warrants nor professes that the title is valid.”).  Assignor estoppel for patents is derived from real property law.   Minerva , slip op. at 5-6.  A patent quitclaim assignment could include language such as “hereby conveys and quitclaims” or “hereby transfers by quitclaim”, and the document title could explicitly use the word “quitclaim” (or “quit-claim”). 

[xvii] A U.S. utility patent application (but not a design patent application) can receive a filing date even if lacking a claim.  37 C.F.R. § 1.53 .

[xviii] However, handwritten changes to an assignment are normally initialed and dated by each of the assignor(s) to avoid disputes about post-execution changes not agreed to by the assignor(s).  See MPEP § 323 . 

[xix] See Mast, Foos, & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co. , 177 U.S. 485, 493 (1900) (“we must presume the patentee was fully informed of everything which preceded him, whether such were the actual fact or not”); In re Wood , 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) (“we presume full knowledge by the inventor of all the prior art in the field of his endeavor. However, with regard to prior art outside the field of his endeavor, we only presume knowledge from those arts reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.”) accord Airbus SAS v. Firepass Corp. , 941 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

[xx] See Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc. , 527 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( “ Construction of patent assignment agreements is a matter of state contract law.”) and Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc. , 109 F.3d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the question of who owns the patent rights and on what terms typically is a question exclusively for state courts”; collecting cases); but contrast, e.g., Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. , 507 P.2d 1119, 1121 (Colo. App. 1973) (continued employment insufficient consideration for patent assignment, which was found invalid for lack of consideration) and Jostens, Inc. v. Nat’l Computer Sys. , 318 N.W.2d 691, 703-04 (Minn. 1982) (mere continued employment provided insufficient consideration under Minnesota law for coercive intellectual property agreement) with, e.g., Preston v. Marathon Oil Co. , 684 F.3d 1276, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (under Wyoming law, no additional consideration is required to support an employee’s post-employment execution of an agreement to assign intellectual property to his employer). A state-by-state or country-by-country survey is beyond the scope of this article.   

[xxi] See Allen v. Riley , 203 U.S. 347, 355-57 (1906); Akazawa v. Link New Tech. , 520 F.3d 1354, 1356-58 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also 35 U.S.C. § 261 ; but see DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. , 517 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (whether patent assignment clause creates automatic assignment or mere obligation to assign treated under Federal Circuit law).

[xxii] Dennis Crouch, “Assignor Estoppel Persists — But Only for Claims Specifically Assigned,” Patently-O (June 29, 2021).

[xxiii] See, e.g., Jostens, 318 N.W.2d at 703-04.

• Tags Assignments , Assignor Estoppel , Patents

• About IPWatchdog
• IPWatchdog Team
• Article Submission
• Contributors

Practical Considerations for Patent Assignments After the Supreme Court’s Decision in Minerva Surgical v. Hologic

“Because the focus remains on ensuring fairness and consistency, when patent ownership is derived from an assignment from the inventor, inventors and companies alike should not consider patent assignments to be routine documents without possible negative implications.”

What SCOTUS Said

As a refresher, the case centered around two patents invented by Csaba Truckai related to procedures and devices to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2004, Truckai assigned his interest in a patent application which claimed a moisture permeable applicator head to destroy cells in the uterine lining and any future continuation applications to his company, Novacept. Novacept sold its portfolio of patents and patent applications to another company, which was eventually acquired by respondent Hologic, Inc. in 2007. After assigning his rights to Novacept, Truckai founded petitioner Minerva Surgical, Inc. in 2008 and developed a competing device which used a moisture impermeable applicator head to treat abnormal uterine bleeding and was also the subject of an issued patent. In 2013, Hologic filed a continuation application adding claims for an applicator head without regard to whether the applicator head is moisture permeable or impermeable. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) later issued the patent.

Hologic sued Minerva for patent infringement in 2015. Minerva challenged the validity of the asserted patent, arguing that it was invalid because it lacked written description support for a moisture impermeable head. Hologic invoked the doctrine of assignor estoppel to argue that Minerva (and Truckai) were estopped from challenging the validity of the patent. The district court agreed, and the jury found that Minerva infringed. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, finding that assignor estoppel applied.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected each of the three arguments raised by Minerva challenging the applicability of the doctrine of assignor estoppel. First, the Court rejected Minerva’s argument that the doctrine of assignor estoppel was eliminated by the Patent Act of 1952. The Court held that accepting this argument would eliminate a host of other common law preclusion doctrines in patent disputes, a position the Court found to be “untenable.” Second, the Court rejected Minerva’s argument that the doctrine of assignor estoppel was eliminated by earlier case law from the Court. To the contrary, the Court noted that its earlier rulings cited by Minerva merely enforced boundaries and limitations on the doctrine of assignor estoppel without eliminating the doctrine itself. Third, the Court rejected Minerva’s argument outright that the doctrine should be eliminated for policy reasons to weed out “bad patents.”

Despite reinforcing the doctrine’s existence, the Court did recognize the need to (again) clarify its bounds, which are defined by the principles of fairness and consistency in which the centuries-old doctrine is rooted. The Court pointed out that the primary purpose of the doctrine is to prevent an inventor from making inconsistent representations about a patent’s validity—in the first instance warranting (either explicitly or implicitly) that the patent is valid when assigning his or her rights but then later claiming that the patent he or she assigned is invalid and should never have issued. Conversely, the doctrine of assignor estoppel may not apply in situations where later challenges to patent validity would pose little risk of unfairness or inconsistencies—such as when an inventor assigns a patent application before it is possible to make any warranties of validity for specific patent claims.

The Court helpfully provided representative examples of situations where the doctrine of assignor estoppel would not be an available defense to an inventor’s challenge to patent validity, and these generally arise when the facts indicate that the inventor was not originally in a position to “warrant” the validity of the patented invention, and a later challenge to the validity would not be inconsistent or unfair. One example is situations when an employee assigns rights in any future inventions developed during the course of employment. Such non-specific assignments thus may not be deemed to explicitly or implicitly warrant validity of future inventions not yet conceived at the time of assignment. A further example is situations when an assignee returns to the patent office after the assignment by the inventor and files a broadening amendment or continuation that results in new claims which are “materially broader than the old claims.” In this instance, because the assignor did not warrant the validity of the new and broader claims, estoppel does not apply, and the assignor can challenge the new claims in litigation. Similarly, the Court pointed out that no contradiction arises, and the doctrine should not apply, when a patent that was assigned later becomes invalid due to a change in the governing law.

In line with the above reasoning, the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s ruling and remanded for consideration of whether Hologic’s new claim was “materially broader” than the claims in Truckai’s patent application at the time of assignment. The four dissenting Justices, however, were persuaded by the arguments presented by Minerva.  Justice Alito dissented on the basis that the Court could not properly decide the issues in this case without first deciding whether to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co. , 266 U.S. 342 (1924). Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented on the basis that the doctrine of assignor estoppel was in fact abrogated by the Patent Act of 1952 because the doctrine was neither well-settled common law at that time nor did Congress ratify Westinghouse when it enacted the law.

Key Take-Aways

The doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to be an available defense in patent infringement suits to challenge the validity of an asserted patent. Application of assignor estoppel, however, remains a fact-intensive inquiry that requires careful examination of the assignment record and prosecution history to determine what the assignor may or may not have represented at the time of the assignment and whether the claims have been materially broadened since the assignment was executed. Because the focus remains on ensuring fairness and consistency, when patent ownership is derived from an assignment from the inventor, inventors and companies alike should not consider patent assignments to be routine documents without possible negative implications. The following considerations thus should be taken into account in preparing and executing patent assignments.

• Companies seeking to avoid assignor estoppel may wish to include express provisions in employment agreements preventing an inventor from later challenging the validity of the assigned patent or patent application. Care should be taken, however, in the preparation of such provisions as there may be enforceability issues with blanket or overly broad anti-challenge provisions.
• Avoid blanket assignment agreements in the employment context. These are commonly found in employment agreements, but reliance on such blanket requirements as the sole basis for assignment would not be expected to withstand the “fairness and consistency” scrutiny. Assignment agreements should be narrowly tailored in the context of specific patent(s) or patent application(s) and should include representations from the inventor(s) as to the validity of each assigned claim. Keep in mind, however, that inventors may seek to minimize any representations they make regarding the validity of certain claims to avoid the risk that estoppel will apply after their departure.
• It is a common practice for patent assignments to include “catch-all” provisions whereby the inventor assigns rights in all later continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, etc. It should not be presumed, however, that catch-all provisions will exclude an inventor’s option to later challenge patent validity, particularly for broadened claims. One option may be to ensure that catch-all phrases are worded to encompass all aspects of the subject matter described in the application without limitation to the actually claimed embodiments. In addition to an initial assignment agreement, assignees may also consider having inventor(s) sign a declaration each time a continuation is filed or amendment is made affirmatively attesting to the validity of the new claims. Since inventor declarations in the US must only be filed before issuance, there may be benefit in delaying execution of the declaration until after allowance, and the execution of the declaration at that time may be evidence that the inventor is accepting validity of the claims as allowed. This poses the risk, however, that the inventor/assignor may be unavailable for signing declaration after allowance, which may be the case if the inventor/assignor has departed the assignee company. An alternative may be to file a declaration at the time of filing the application and also filing a confirmatory declaration after allowance.
• In many situations, companies provide nominal payments to employees upon issuance of patents for which they are inventors. Such payments may be accompanied by documentation indicating that acceptance is evidence that the inventor believes that the claims, as granted, are valid. It is difficult, of course, to predict which employees or inventors may depart a company after assigning his or her rights. This eventuality may be mitigated by providing payments for inventions instead of payments for granted patents. Acceptance of payment for the invention may be later evidence that the inventor believed all aspects of the initially filed application to be valid and thus may dissuade them from challenging the validity of the assigned patent portfolio after the initial assignment has been executed.
• It is important to recognize that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not apply the doctrine of assignor estoppel to inter partes review proceedings. Thus, even in situations with assignor estoppel may be an effective defense in court proceedings, IPR proceedings may remain as a viable alternative to challenge the validity of a patent asserted in district court.
• Applicability of assignor estoppel should also be a consideration when acquiring existing patent portfolios. Proper diligence thus may include making determinations of what changes (specifically broadening changes) have been made to the patents to determine whether estoppel may apply and secure attestations from the assignor regarding the validity of those claims.

Still to Be Seen

Several open questions remain after the Supreme Court’s decision, including what evidence is needed to demonstrate that claims have been made “materially broader” post-assignment. It is also unclear whether all inventors must make representations regarding the validity of the claims-at-issue to apply assignor estoppel or representations of only one inventor would be sufficient. Similarly, it is unclear whether estoppel would have applied if Truckai was only a mere employee of Minerva and not its founder and principal inventor. Despite these remaining questions, assignor estoppel remains as an effective defense for patent owners and can be solidified through effective planning and execution of assignment documents.

Image Source: Deposit Photos Author: tashatuvango Image ID: 77590300 

Help Support IPWatchdog: Why Your Donation Matters

At IPWatchdog, we are dedicated to providing in-depth analysis, news, and educational content on intellectual property law and policy. As an independent media company, we rely on the support of our sponsors and our community to maintain the quality and accessibility of our resources. Your donation enables us to continue our mission, ensuring that innovators, attorneys, and enthusiasts have access to the latest insights and developments in the field. By donating, you are not only helping us sustain our operations but also contributing to the growth and advancement of the intellectual property community.

Every contribution, no matter the size, is greatly appreciated and makes a difference.

Help Support IPWatchdog With a Donation

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

Varsity sponsors.

Latest IPW Posts

Amicus, uspto urge denial of cellect scotus petition, apple loses at cafc in bid for mandamus relief to transfer out of texas, texas court bars ftc’s non-compete ban nationwide, u.s. district court dismisses copyright lawsuit against kimmel, abc for cameo clip segment, a trade secret case study: application of ‘res judicata’ across the u.s. federal and state court systems, junior varsity sponsors.

IPWatchdog Events

Women’s ip forum, webinar: smart patent strategies – managing and optimizing your portfolio, webinar: managing trademark workflows more efficiently and profitably, webinar – sponsored by anaqua, ipwatchdog live 2024 at the renaissance arlington capital view, industry events, hgp to host exclusive online auction featuring premium ip of waitr holdings inc., executive education: pharmaceuticals and the law, litfincon – the premier litigation finance conference, fall institute on intellectual property by hipla & ipil, from ipwatchdog.

More from IPWatchdog

August 22, 2024

August 21, 2024

August 20, 2024

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. Accept and Close

“New EPO Requirements Regarding Patent Assignments”

As of November 1, 2016, new European Patent Office (EPO) guidelines require that the signatures of not only the assignor(s), but also the assignee(s) appear on assignment documents.

These changes have no effect on assignments recorded at the EPO prior to November 1, 2016.  However, when recording a transfer after November 1, 2016, an assignment of a European application must include:

• Signature of the assignor(s) (e.g., the inventor(s)) effecting transfer of rights;
• Signature of the assignee(s), acknowledging acceptance of the transfer; and
• Specific job title of individual signing on behalf of the assignee (rather than “authorized representative” or a similar designation).

The EPO is expected to refuse to record assignments that do not satisfy the foregoing requirements.  

Accordingly, we believe that in the future all assignments should be signed by all parties.  Regarding the cases where an assignment has been executed but has not been recorded at the EPO, and where the assignment document was only signed by the assignor(s), you may consider obtaining a second signature from a representative of the assignee acknowledging acceptance of the rights.  As another alternative, it might be possible for both parties to sign a “confirmatory assignment” to confirm that an assignment that took place on a date prior to the effective date of these new guidelines.

If you have questions as to particular situations, please contact a Marshall Gerstein patent attorney .

The information contained in this alert is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for obtaining legal advice. Under applicable rules of professional conduct, this communication may constitute Attorney Advertising. © 2016 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP, Chicago, Illinois. All rights reserved.

Please note that email communications sent through this website do not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm, and will not prevent us from representing another person or company involved in the same matter that is the subject of your message. Unless you are already a client of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, do not send any information that you consider privileged or confidential. Click “Accept” below to confirm that you have read and understand this message.

By clicking “Proceed” below, you will be opening a new browser window and leaving our website.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

The Practice of Law

• Law360 Pulse

Business of Law

Law360 authority, deep news & analysis, tax authority, employment authority, insurance authority, real estate authority, bankruptcy authority, healthcare authority.

• Law360 Employment Authority
• Law360 Tax Authority
• Law360 Insurance Authority
• Law360 Real Estate Authority
• Law360 Healthcare Authority
• Law360 Bankruptcy Authority

• Law360 In-Depth
• Law360 Podcasts
• Regional Powerhouses
• Law360's MVPs
• Women in Law Report
• Diversity Snapshot
• Practice Groups of the Year
• Rising Stars
• Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
• Adv. Search & Platform Tools
• About all sections
• Browse all sections
• Class Action
• Competition

Expert Analysis

• Intellectual Property
• Product Liability
• Track attorneys
• Track judges
• Join the Law360 team
• Search legal jobs
• Learn more about Law360
• Read testimonials
• Contact Law360
• Sign up for our newsletters
• Law360 Company
• About Law360 Authority
• Resource Library

Considerations For Patent Assignments After Minerva Ruling

Law360 is on it, so you are, too..

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.

A Law360 subscription includes features such as

• Daily newsletters
• Expert analysis
• Advanced search
• Judge information
• Real-time alerts
• 450K+ searchable archived articles

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Related Sections

• Commercial Contracts
• Life Sciences
• Westman Champlin
• F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
• Hologic Inc.
• Marathon Oil Corp.
• Minerva Surgical Inc.
• Unisys Corp.

Government Agencies

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Supreme Court
• I forgot my password
• I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
• How do I sign up for a newsletter?

Already have access? Click here to login

Get instant access to the one-stop news source for business lawyers, sign up now for free access to this content.

Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)

PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.

Password (at least 8 characters required)

Confirm Password

Show all interests

Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest. You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications. We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

Already have access?

• Password: Forgot your password?
• Remember login

Sign up for our Appellate newsletter

You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:.

Law360 takes your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

• More Blog Popular
• Who's Who Legal
• Instruct Counsel
• My newsfeed
• Save & file
• View original
• Follow Please login to follow content.

add to folder:

• My saved (default)

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Complying With The Proof Of Right Requirement For Making Patent Applications In India

In cases where the applicant of a patent application in India is an assignee of the true and first inventor, the applicant is required to furnish a proof of right to make the patent application. In this article, we explore the various documents/legal instruments that may be furnished by the applicant to meet the proof of right requirement of the IPO. Provided below are examples of such documents or legal instruments, the conditions warranting their usage, and the best practices related to the filing of such documents or legal instruments to meet the proof of right requirement.

• Endorsement in Form-1 : Probably the simplest way of meeting the proof of right requirement is to have the Form-1 executed by the inventors. It is imperative to note here that the Form-1 can be executed in counterparts, in cases where multiple inventors residing at different geographical locations are involved in the invention. The executed Form-1 should be submitted by the applicant either along with the filing of the application or the latest within six months from the filing of the application. In terms of acceptability, the date of execution of the Form-1 could be any date, i.e., either before the filing of the application or after it as well, as it serves as a mere declaration made by the inventors in cases where an assignment is already existing between them and the applicant. However, sometimes there may be an objection on Form-1 that bears an execution date later than the date of filing of the application. Therefore, as a best practice and in order to avoid unnecessary formal objections from the IPO, the executed Form-1 should bear a date that is the same as the date of filing of the application or any date prior to that.

The guiding aid for the evaluation of patent applications – the manual of patent office practice and procedure (MPPP) states that the proof of right requirement can be met by way of an endorsement made by the inventor in the application, i.e., Form-1, or by the filing of the assignment deed existing between the inventor(s) and the Applicant. Taking a detailed look at the relevant column provided in the Form-1 to carry out said endorsement, the Form-1 makes it abundantly clear that mere endorsement of the Form-1 is only a signed declaration by the inventors to mee the proof of right requirement and there need to be a pre-existing assignment between the inventor and the applicant. More specifically, the form states in the relevant column “in case the applicant is an assignee: the inventor(s) may sign herein below ….”, thus clarifying the declaratory nature of the endorsement of Form-1.

• Original assignment deed: As is stated in the form for application for grant of patent and is also specified in the MPPP as explained above, an applicant can also submit an original copy of the assignment deed existing between the true and first inventors and the applicant, to meet the proof of right requirement. When using this legal instrument to comply with the proof of right requirement, care should be taken that the assignment deed counts as a valid contract. More specifically, when having the assignment deed drafted and executed, the applicant should ensure that the assignment deed clearly specifies the consideration value or at least mentions that some consideration value has been provided in exchange to the inventor(s) in return for the transfer of right to make the patent application. Furthermore, the applicant should also ensure that the assignment deed is either a global assignment or at least clearly mentions India as one of the countries where the assignee can make the patent application for the grant of a patent for the invention.
• Certified or Notarized copy of the assignment deed: In instances where a patent application is filed seeking priority of a previously filed patent application filed in a convention country, a certified copy of assignment issued by the patent office of the convention country can be submitted. Alternatively, as per the colloquial practice, a copy of the assignment deed submitted in the convention country may be submitted by the applicant to comply with the proof of right requirement. As a best practice, the copy of the assignment deed should be locally notarized prior to submission with the IPO.
• Employment contract: In instances where the inventor is no longer reachable for the execution of Form-1, an applicant may furnish a copy of the employment contract as proof of right document to meet the requirement. When submitting such a document as proof of right, one should keep in mind that the employment contract would only hold good as long as a clear cause of assignment of IP developed by the inventor to the employer, i.e., the applicant is specified in the employment contract. Also, the employment contract should bear the signature of the inventor, for it to hold good as the proof of right document.

Along with the employment contract, the Patent Office often also demands for an employment certificate which states the inventor’s employment duration with the employer. A possible reason for this demand may be that the employment certificate may help in establishing that the inventor was still employed with the employer when the patent application was made. Therefore, as a safe practice and as a proactive measure, the applicant may also submit the employment certificate along with the employment contract to comply with the proof of right requirement.

• Confirmatory assignment: In many instances, the applicant may not wish to file the assignment deed or may not be in a position to file the assignment deed. For example, as such documents are made public, the applicant may not wish to file the assignment deed owing to the confidential monetary clauses, if present in the assignment deed. Another case could be that the original assignment deed may have been inadvertently misplaced. In such cases, to comply with the proof of right requirement, the applicant may file a confirmatory assignment. The confirmatory assignment may be understood as an assignment, executed at a later date, which confirms an earlier made assignment between the parties involved. The confirmatory assignment is to be executed by the parties involved, i.e., both the applicant and the inventors. This serves as an alternate to form-1.
• Declaration as to entitlement to file the patent application by applicant, in case of PCT applications: In instances where the applicant has already filed a declaration under PCT Rule 4.17(ii), in respect of a PCT application for which a National Phase application has been filed in India, the applicant may submit a copy of the above declaration with the IPO to comply with the proof of right requirement. However, some of the Controllers at the IPO, despite the above submitted declaration, object that such a declaration does not meet the requirement of proof of right. In such a case, the applicant can leverage the provisions stated under PCT Rule 51bis. 2(ii) to establish their case of compliance of the proof of right. The PCT Rule 51bis. 2(ii) states that the designated Office need not seek any document or evidence relating to the assignee’s entitlement to apply for the patent, if a declaration to that effect is contained in the request or is submitted directly to the designated Office, unless the designated office has reasonable doubts to the veracity of the declaration made by the applicant. Therefore, if no reasonable doubt has been expressed in an objection, it may be countered that the patent office is not justified in objecting to the acceptability of declaration under PCT Rule 4.17(ii).
• Affidavits: Referring again to the instance where the inventor is not available for the execution of the Form-1 and if, for any reason, the employment contract or the assignment deed cannot be provided, the applicant may consider filing for an affidavit, declaring his entitlement to file for the patent on behalf of the inventor(s). The affidavit serves as a legal instrument and it is highly preferred that supporting documents be provided along with the affidavit. Such documents could be, a record of attempts, such as e-mails and/or phone calls, made by the applicant to reach the inventor, employment tenure certificate of the inventor, and executed testimonials from other inventors, in case of multiple inventors, etc.. However, owing to the contentious nature of affidavits and the liability on to the officer signing the affidavit, this is the least preferred option of complying with the proof of right requirement.

As the proof of right requirement is a non-discretionary requirement specified in the Indian patent law, the applicants must therefore, ensure compliance to this requirement. With the help of the aforementioned documents/legal instruments and knowledge of the various circumstances surrounding their usage and applicability, an applicant can easily comply with the proof of right requirement for making a patent application in India.

Filed under

Organisations.

• Indian Patent Office

Popular articles from this firm

Law respects possession -understanding the concept of adverse possession *, analysing delhi high court’s decision on the issue of return of plaint due to lack of jurisdiction *, q&a: key ip issues affecting licensing agreements in india *, echoes of justice: the delhi high court’s take on saregama and emami’s copyright clash *, madras high court denies patent to iit madras based on lack of data to establish economic significance *.

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .

Related practical resources PRO

• Checklist Checklist: Employer compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (USA)
• How-to guide How-to guide: How to implement privacy by design within your organization (USA)
• How-to guide How-to guide: How to reduce the risk of a GDPR data breach (UK)

Related research hubs

IP Assignments: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law

March 22, 2023 By John DiGiacomo

Like any valuable business asset, patents, trademarks and copyrights can be sold, assigned and licensed. Indeed, assignment and licensing is common with respect to intellectual property. In legal terms, an “assignment” is a transfer of ownership, either full ownership or partial. In basic terms, a nunc pro tunc is a type of assignment that is backdated. Nunc pro tunc is Latin meaning “now for then.”A nunc pro tunc assignment will be signed on a particular date, but parties will deem the assignment to have been granted on some earlier date.

For a Trademark registered on May 1, 2017, an example of how a nunc pro tunc assignment provision might look like this:

Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, ASSIGNOR agrees that ASSIGNOR hereby assigned unto ASSIGNEE nunc pro tunc effective as of October 1, 2020, all right, title and interest in and to the May 1, 2017 trademark described herein … In testimony whereof, ASSIGNOR, has signed this instrument this 1st day of October 2020.”

In this example, the assignment is deemed to have been granted on May 1, 2017, but has an effective date of October 1, 2020.

In business terms, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used where past IP assignments are made verbally or via conduct. In the rush to get IP “to market,” it is not uncommon for assignments to be granted, but not reduced to writing. Nunc pro tunc assignments are also commonly used to bridge gaps in the “chain of title” for IP. This can happen when corporations and/or assets are sold, but proper paperwork is missing. Purchasers believe that they have ownership to certain patents, trademarks, or copyrights, but the missing documents cause “gaps” in the chain of title. These “gaps” can be cured by obtaining a nunc pro tunc assignment from the original owner of the IP. In the same manner, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used as part of settlements for litigation involving claims of patent, trademark and/or copyright infringement or disputes over ownership

For litigation purposes, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used to give a party legal standing to initiate litigation. To have “standing” to initiate litigation, a party must have some ownership interest in the patent, trademark or copyright. However, for courts, “standing” is based on the effective date of the assignment, not the earlier date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment.

However, for other purposes, the earlier assignment date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment is the credited date. For example, an assignment of a registered trademark must be recorded with the US Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). This is done electronically. The assignment must be uploaded along with the proper recordation form and applicable fee. For the USPTO, the trademark assignment is based on the date designated for the assignment rather than the date of execution of the nunc pro tunc assignment.

So, when should you use a nunc pro tunc assignment for a trademark? The most common situations include:

• When a trademark was previously assigned but not recorded – Sometimes, an assignment of trademark ownership may occur but the paperwork is not properly filed or recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this case, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct the oversight and retroactively assign the trademark to the new owner.
• When the original assignment was not effective – A nunc pro tunc assignment can also be used to correct a defective assignment. For example, if the original assignment was not properly executed or lacked essential terms, the nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct those issues and make the assignment retroactively effective.
• When there is a change in business structure – A nunc pro tunc assignment may be necessary when there is a change in the business structure of the trademark owner, such as a merger or acquisition. In this case, the new owner may need to retroactively assign the trademark to themselves to ensure that they have proper ownership and control over the trademark.
• When there is a dispute over ownership – If there is a dispute over the ownership of a trademark, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to resolve the issue. This can occur when multiple parties claim ownership of a trademark, or when there is confusion over who actually owns the trademark.
• When the trademark was abandoned – In some cases, a trademark may have been abandoned by the previous owner. If this occurs, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to assign ownership to the new owner retroactively. However, it is important to note that there are strict time limits for filing a nunc pro tunc assignment in these cases.

It is important to note that a nunc pro tunc assignment should only be used when there is a genuine need to correct an error or oversight in the assignment of a trademark ownership. It is not a tool to be used to cover up illegal or unethical behavior.

In addition, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be a complex legal process that requires the assistance of an experienced trademark attorney. The attorney can help ensure that the assignment is executed properly and in compliance with all legal requirements.

Contact Revision Legal

For more information, contact the IP and  business lawyers at Revision Legal at 231-714-0100.

Put Revision Legal on your side

• Insights & Events

About McDermott

• Firm Overview
• Vision & Values
• Our Approach
• Justice, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Pro Bono & Community Service

2023 IP Outlook: Improper Inventorship in US Patent Litigations

• 2023 IP Outlook: Improper Inventorship in US Patent Litigati...

Inventorship issues can have serious implications in patent litigation, leading to invalidation or unenforceability of the patent at issue, as seen in several notable 2022 cases. In the coming year, patent owners should take steps to minimize risks related to improper inventorship challenges.

Improper inventorship typically arises in one or more of the following situations:

• Nonjoinder – failing to name an inventor
• Misjoinder – naming an incorrect inventor
• Derivation – a named inventor deriving the invention from another unnamed inventor

A patentee can avoid invalidity by correcting inventorship under Section 256 in most circumstances. To correct inventorship, the patentee must understand the legal definition of an inventor in the US:

• An inventor is the individual (or if a joint invention, the individuals) who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. Joint inventor contributions can be unequal, and contribution to one claim is sufficient.
• An inventor must contribute to the conception of the invention; mere reduction-to-practice is not enough. For example, co-authorship on a peer-reviewed publication by itself is insufficient to meet the inventive contribution requirement, but can be used as support of inventorship .
• In 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons— “that is, human beings” —and not an artificial intelligence (AI) system.

Looking ahead: Companies in industries that rely heavily on AI should ensure that humans are involved in the creation and/or development of intellectual property because a machine or AI will not qualify as an inventor in a US patent application.

Because the America Invents Act Section 256 removed the “without deceptive intent” requirement to correct inventorship , inventorship errors—whether intentional or not—can be corrected under Section 256. But inventorship issues made with deceptive intent can still cause a patent to be held unenforceable under a claim of inequitable conduct if the challenging party shows with clear and convincing evidence that the patent applicant withheld or misrepresented “but-for” material information and acted with specific intent to deceive the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Looking ahead: Patent owners can take proactive steps to mitigate risks associated with improper inventorship:

• Secure patent ownership rights through employee, contractor and/or consultant agreements that contain present assignment language. Courts have held that sufficient assignment language includes “will assign and does hereby assign,” instead of a mere statement that the intellectual property “shall be the property” of the entity. Consider confirmatory assignment agreements if there is uncertainty about the proper assignment language in your current agreements.
• Perform regular audits of key intellectual property and assess inventorship for each patent application, particularly for complex patent families that include continuations-in-part.
• Ensure that proper intellectual property ownership agreements are in place for research and development projects involving joint research or collaboration with third parties.
• Conduct searches of publications for all individuals who participate in a project that may involve the creation or development of intellectual property. A publication’s authors may be different than the individuals named on a patent with overlapping subject matter, which could lead to improper inventorship challenges.
• Protect privilege during diligence relating to inventorship to minimize exposure during discovery and depositions if inventorship is ever litigated.

CHECK OUT OTHER 2023 IP OUTLOOK PATENT TOPICS

Mandy h. kim.

Partner | Orange County

Cecilia Choy, Ph.D.

Associate | Silicon Valley

Assignments overview and pitfalls to beware!

03 December 2012

Many patents will see a change in ownership at some stage in their lives. Assignments are commonplace and occur for a variety of reasons; for example, in the context of a business sale where a buyer purchases all of the assets (including intellectual property assets) of a business from the vendor. Another is in the context of intra-group reorganisations.

Assignments can also occur as part of settlement of a dispute. This article outlines some of the pitfalls of which you should be aware when assigning patents; many of which can be averted by careful drafting of the assignment agreement.

Unless the assignment is intra-group, there will usually be some distance between what the assignee wants (typically, a variety of representations, warranties and indemnities in respect of the assigned rights) and what the assignor is prepared to give. This is a commercial decision and hence no two negotiated patent assignments will be identical.

Consideration

Under English law, to be a valid contract there must be consideration which is either money or money's worth. This is often overlooked but a key point required for the assignment agreement to be legally binding. Whilst the acceptance of mutual obligations may suffice, it is simplest to have a sum of money (even if only for £1). An alternative is to execute the assignment as a deed, though there are specific formalities which must be followed for the agreement to be a deed. Of course, if the parties agree to nominal consideration (eg, £1), it is important that this small amount is actually paid to the assignor.

An assignment of a UK patent (or application) must be in writing and signed by the assignor. It used to be the case that an assignment of a UK patent (or application) would need to be signed by both parties, however the law was changed in 2005. In reality, both parties will usually sign the assignment agreement. Where one or both of the parties is an individual in their personal capacity or a foreign entity, special 'testimonial' provisions are required; for example the signature to the assignment may need to be witnessed.

The assignment

English law distinguishes two types of assignment: legal and equitable. To assign the legal interest in something means that you have assigned simply the title to that property and not the right to exercise the rights inherent in it. This is the equitable (beneficial) interest and if this is not also assigned with the legal title, this can result in a split in ownership. Unless the parties specifically agree otherwise, legal and beneficial ownership should always be assigned together. It is possible to have co-assignees (ie, co-owners) but the terms of the co-ownership will need to be carefully considered.

It is possible to assign the right to bring proceedings for past infringements in the UK, but not in some other jurisdictions. Where non-UK rights are involved, local advice may be required as to whether such an assignment would be enforceable as against a prior infringer. This potential uncertainty makes a robust further assurance clause even more desirable (see below), to ensure the assignor's co-operation after completion of the assignment.

The assignee will also typically argue for (and the assignor will typically resist) a transfer with 'full title guarantee', as this implies as a matter of law certain covenants: that the assignor is entitled to sell the property; that the assignor will do all it reasonably can, at its own expense, to vest title to the property in the assignee; and that the property is free from various third party rights.

In terms of European patents (EP), it is important to remember that ownership of an EP application is determined under by the inventor/applicant's local law, rather than under European patent law. This means that a formal, written assignment agreement should be executed to ensure that the applicant is entitled to ownership of the patent application, for example in cases where the work undertaken was done by a consultant or where local law dictates that the owner is the inventor(s). An assignment should include assignment of the right to claim priority, as well as the right to the invention and any patent applications. This need to obtain an effective assignment of the application (and right to claim priority) is particularly important where a priority application has been made in the name of the inventor. If such an assignment is not executed before applications which claim priority from earlier cases (for example, PCT applications) are filed, the right to ownership and/or the right to claim priority may be lost.

Don't forget tax

Currently, there is no stamp duty payable on the assignment of intellectual property in the UK. However, particularly for assignments which include foreign intellectual property rights, there can be considerable tax implications in transferring ownership of intellectual property rights in some countries and it is always prudent to check that the transfer will not result in excessive tax liabilities for you.

Update the register

Registered rights need to be updated at the patent offices. You will need to decide who pays for this: in the case of one patent, it is a simple process, however in the case of a whole portfolio, the costs can be considerable. Remember, if you ever need to take any action on a patent you own, you need to ensure you are the registered owner of that right at the applicable office.

In the UK, assignments can be registered but there is no statutory requirement to do so. In the case of international assignments, local offices may require recordal of the assignment. In any event, it is desirable for an assignee to ensure that the transaction is recorded. Section 68 of the UK Patents Act provides that an assignee who does not register the assignment within six months runs the risk of not being able to claim costs or expenses in infringement proceedings for an infringement that occurred before registration of the assignment, although recent case-law has reduced this risk somewhat.

Further assurance

The assignee will typically take charge of recordals to the Patents Offices; however they will often need the assignor's help in doing so. A 'further assurance' clause is a key element of the assignment from an assignee's point of view both for this purpose and for assisting in the defence and enforcement of patents or applications for registration. On the other hand, the assignor will typically seek to qualify its further assurance covenant by limiting it to what the assignee may reasonably require, and that anything done should be at the assignee's expense. An assignor should also require that recordals are done promptly to minimise their future correspondence from patent offices.

International transactions

In transactions which involve the transfer of patents in various countries, the parties can execute a global assignment which covers all the patents being transferred, or there can be separate assignments for each country. The former, global assignment, is usually preferred however this will frequently need to be supplemented by further confirmatory assignments in forms prescribed by the relevant international patent registries. As noted above, the preparation and execution of such assignments can be time-consuming and costly, hence the need to decide in advance who bears the cost of such recordals, and the assignee should insist on a further assurance provision.

Sharing IP information such as new legislation, relevant case law, market trends and other topical issues is important to us. We send out our IP newsletters by email about once a month, publish IP books annually, share occasional IP news alerts and also invitations to our IP events such as webinars and seminars. We take your privacy seriously and you can change your mailing preferences or unsubscribe at any time.

To sign up to our marketing communications, please fill out this form.

Your contact details

What would you like to hear from us about?

You can contact us at [email protected], telephone +44 (0) 20 7269 8850 or write to us at D Young & Co LLP, 3 Noble Street, London, EC2V 7BQ to update your preferences at any time.

We use cookies in our email marketing communications. You can view our privacy policy here and cookie policy here .

Almost finished! Submit this form and we will send you an email for you to confirm your preferences.

• Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures
• Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
• Chapter 0300
• Section 302

302 Recording of Assignment Documents [R-07.2015]

37 cfr 3.11  documents which will be recorded..

• (a) Assignments of applications, patents, and registrations, and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31 , will be recorded in the Office. Other documents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31 , affecting title to applications, patents, or registrations, will be recorded as provided in this part or at the discretion of the Director.
• (b) Executive Order 9424 of February 18, 1944 (9 FR 1959, 3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp., p. 303) requires the several departments and other executive agencies of the Government, including Government-owned or Government-controlled corporations, to forward promptly to the Director for recording all licenses, assignments, or other interests of the Government in or under patents or patent applications. Assignments and other documents affecting title to patents or patent applications and documents not affecting title to patents or patent applications required by Executive Order 9424 to be filed will be recorded as provided in this part.
• (c) A joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement will also be recorded as provided in this part.

37 CFR 3.58  Governmental registers.

• (a) The Office will maintain a Departmental Register to record governmental interests required to be recorded by Executive Order 9424. This Departmental Register will not be open to public inspection but will be available for examination and inspection by duly authorized representatives of the Government. Governmental interests recorded on the Departmental Register will be available for public inspection as provided in § 1.12 .
• (b) The Office will maintain a Secret Register to record governmental interests required to be recorded by Executive Order 9424. Any instrument to be recorded will be placed on this Secret Register at the request of the department or agency submitting the same. No information will be given concerning any instrument in such record or register, and no examination or inspection thereof or of the index thereto will be permitted, except on the written authority of the head of the department or agency which submitted the instrument and requested secrecy, and the approval of such authority by the Director. No instrument or record other than the one specified may be examined, and the examination must take place in the presence of a designated official of the Patent and Trademark Office. When the department or agency which submitted an instrument no longer requires secrecy with respect to that instrument, it must be recorded anew in the Departmental Register.

37 CFR Part 3 sets forth Office rules on recording assignments and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents and the rights of an assignee.

37 CFR 3.11(c) provides that the Office will record a joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement.

302.01 Assignment Document Must Be Copy for Recording [R-08.2012]

37 cfr 3.24  requirements for documents and cover sheets relating to patents and patent applications..

• (a) For electronic submissions: Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document may be submitted for recording. All documents must be submitted as digitized images in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) or another form as prescribed by the Director. When printed to a paper size of either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), the document must be legible and a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides.
• (b) For paper or facsimile submissions: Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document must be submitted for recording. Only one side of each page may be used. The paper size must be either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), and in either case, a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides. For paper submissions, the paper used should be flexible, strong white, non-shiny, and durable. The Office will not return recorded documents, so original documents must not be submitted for recording.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office will accept and record only a copy of an original assignment or other document. See MPEP § 317 . The document submitted for recordation will not be returned to the submitter. If the copy submitted for recordation is illegible, the recorded document will be illegible. Accordingly, applicants and patent owners should ensure that only a legible copy is submitted for recordation.

302.02 Translation of Assignment Document [R-08.2012]

37 cfr 3.26  english language requirement..

The Office will accept and record non-English language documents only if accompanied by an English translation signed by the individual making the translation.

The assignment document, if not in the English language, will not be recorded unless accompanied by an English translation signed by the translator.

302.03 Identifying Patent or Application [R-07.2015]

37 cfr 3.21  identification of patents and patent applications..

An assignment relating to a patent must identify the patent by the patent number. An assignment relating to a national patent application must identify the national patent application by the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456). An assignment relating to an international patent application which designates the United States of America must identify the international application by the international application number; e.g., PCT/US2012/012345. An assignment relating to an international design application which designates the United States of America must identify the international design application by the international registration number or by the U.S. application number assigned to the international design application. If an assignment of a patent application filed under § 1.53(b) of this chapter is executed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the execution of the patent application, but before the patent application is filed, it must identify the patent application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the patent application intended. If an assignment of a provisional application under § 1.53(c) of this chapter is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the provisional application intended.

The patent or patent application to which an assignment relates must be identified by patent number or application number unless the assignment is executed concurrently with or subsequent to the execution of the application but before the application is filed. Then, the application must be identified by the name(s) of the inventors, and the title of the invention. If an assignment of a provisional application is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by name(s) of the inventors and the title of the invention.

The Office makes every effort to provide applicants with the application numbers for newly filed patent applications as soon as possible. It is suggested, however, that an assignment be written to allow entry of the identifying number after the execution of the assignment. An example of acceptable wording is:

“I hereby authorize and request my attorney, (Insert name), of (Insert address), to insert here in parentheses (Application number , filed ) the filing date and application number of said application when known.”

302.04 Foreign Assignee May Designate Domestic Representative [R-10.2019]

35 u.s.c. 293   nonresident patentee; service and notice..

Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.

37 CFR 3.61  Domestic representative.

If the assignee of a patent, patent application, trademark application or trademark registration is not domiciled in the United States, the assignee may designate a domestic representative in a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The designation should state the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the application, patent or registration or rights thereunder.

An assignee of a patent or patent application who is not domiciled in the United States may, by written document signed by such assignee, designate a domestic representative. The designation of domestic representative should always be submitted to the Office as a paper separate from any assignment document. The designation of a domestic representative should be clearly labeled “Designation of Domestic Representative” and it will be entered into the record of the appropriate application or patent file. The designation must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b) .

302.05 Address of Assignee [R-08.2012]

The address of the assignee may be recited in the assignment document and must be given in the required cover sheet. See MPEP § 302.07 .

302.06 Fee for Recording [R-10.2019]

37 cfr 3.41  recording fees..

• (a) All requests to record documents must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a fee is required for each application, patent and registration against which the document is recorded as identified in the cover sheet. The recording fee is set in § 1.21(h) of this chapter for patents and in § 2.6(b)(6) of this chapter for trademarks.
• (1) The document does not affect title and is so identified in the cover sheet (see § 3.31(c)(2)); and
• (2) The document and cover sheet are either: Faxed or electronically submitted as prescribed by the Director, or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 3.27 .

The recording fee set in 37 CFR 1.21(h) is charged for each patent application and patent identified in the required cover sheet except as provided in 37 CFR 3.41(b) . If the request to record a document is submitted electronically, the fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(h)(1) , currently at $0. If the request to record a document is not submitted electronically (i.e., is submitted on paper or via facsimile), the applicable fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(h)(2) . Customers should check the current fee schedule on the Office website before submitting documents for recordation. See MPEP §§ 302.08 - 302.10 for additional information regarding the acceptable ways to submit documents for recordation.

302.07 Assignment Document Must Be Accompanied by a Cover Sheet  [R-10.2019]

37 cfr 3.28  requests for recording..

Each document submitted to the Office for recording must include a single cover sheet (as specified in § 3.31 ) referring either to those patent applications and patents, or to those trademark applications and registrations, against which the document is to be recorded. If a document to be recorded includes interests in, or transactions involving, both patents and trademarks, then separate patent and trademark cover sheets, each accompanied by a copy of the document to be recorded, must be submitted. If a document to be recorded is not accompanied by a completed cover sheet, the document and the incomplete cover sheet will be returned pursuant to § 3.51 for proper completion, in which case the document and a completed cover sheet should be resubmitted.

37 CFR 3.31  Cover sheet content.

• (1) The name of the party conveying the interest;
• (2) The name and address of the party receiving the interest;
• (3) A description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded;
• (i) For trademark assignments and trademark name changes: Each trademark registration number and each trademark application number, if known, against which the Office is to record the document. If the trademark application number is not known, a copy of the application or a reproduction of the trademark must be submitted, along with an estimate of the date that the Office received the application; or
• (ii) For any other document affecting title to a trademark or patent application, registration or patent: Each trademark or patent application number or each trademark registration number or patent against which the document is to be recorded, or an indication that the document is filed together with a patent application;
• (5) The name and address of the party to whom correspondence concerning the request to record the document should be mailed;
• (6) The date the document was executed;
• (i) Place a symbol comprised of letters, numbers, and/or punctuation marks between forward slash marks ( e.g. /Thomas O’Malley III/) in the signature block on the electronic submission; or
• (ii) Sign the cover sheet using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.
• (8) For trademark assignments, the entity and citizenship of the party receiving the interest. In addition, if the party receiving the interest is a domestic partnership or domestic joint venture, the cover sheet must set forth the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (or the state or country of organization) of all general partners or active members that compose the partnership or joint venture.
• (b) A cover sheet should not refer to both patents and trademarks, since any information, including information about pending patent applications, submitted with a request for recordation of a document against a trademark application or trademark registration will become public record upon recordation.
• (1) Indicate that the document relates to a Government interest; and
• (2) Indicate, if applicable, that the document to be recorded is not a document affecting title (see §  3.41(b) ).
• (d) Each trademark cover sheet required by § 3.28 seeking to record a document against a trademark application or registration should include, in addition to the serial number or registration number of the trademark, identification of the trademark or a description of the trademark, against which the Office is to record the document.
• (e) Each patent or trademark cover sheet required by § 3.28 should contain the number of applications, patents or registrations identified in the cover sheet and the total fee.
• (f) Each trademark cover sheet should include the citizenship of the party conveying the interest.
• (1) Identify the document as a “joint research agreement” (in the space provided for the description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded if using an Office-provided form);
• (2) Indicate the name of the owner of the application or patent (in the space provided for the name and address of the party receiving the interest if using an Office-provided form);
• (3) Indicate the name of each other party to the joint research agreement party (in the space provided for the name of the party conveying the interest if using an Office-provided form); and
• (4) Indicate the date the joint research agreement was executed.
• (h) The assignment cover sheet required by § 3.28 for a patent application or patent will be satisfied by the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of a License/ Cancellation of the Recordation of a License Form, Patent Law Treaty Model Certificate of Transfer Form or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of a Security Interest/ Cancellation of the Recordation of a Security Interest Form, as applicable, except where the assignment is also an oath or declaration under § 1.63 of this chapter. An assignment cover sheet required by § 3.28 must contain a conspicuous indication of an intent to utilize the assignment as an oath or declaration under § 1.63 of this chapter.

Each assignment document submitted to the Office for recording must be accompanied by a cover sheet as required by 37 CFR 3.28 . The cover sheet for patents or patent applications must contain:

• (A) The name of the party conveying the interest;
• (B) The name and address of the party receiving the interest;
• (C) A description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded;
• (D) Each patent application number or patent number against which the document is to be recorded, or an indication that the document is filed together with a patent application;
• (E) The name and address of the party to whom correspondence concerning the request to record the document should be mailed;
• (F) The date the document was executed; and
• (G) The signature of the party submitting the document.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, if the assignment document is also intended to serve as the required oath or declaration, the cover sheet must also contain a conspicuous indication of an intent to utilize the assignment as the required oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 . See 37 CFR 3.31(h) .

If the document submitted for recordation is a joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement, the cover sheet must clearly identify the document as a "joint research agreement" (in the space provided for the description of the interest conveyed if using Form PTO-1595). The date the joint research agreement was executed must also be identified. The cover sheet must also identify the name(s) of the owner(s) of the application or patent (in the space provided for the name and address of the party receiving the interest if using Form PTO-1595). The name(s) of every other party(ies) to the joint research agreement must also be identified (in the space provided for the name of the party conveying the interest if using Form PTO-1595).

Each patent cover sheet should contain the number of patent applications or patents identified in the cover sheet and the total fee.

Examples of the type of descriptions of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded that can be identified are:

• (A) assignment;
• (B) security agreement;
• (C) merger;
• (D) change of name;
• (E) license;
• (F) foreclosure;
• (H) contract; and
• (I) joint research agreement.

Cover sheets required by 37 CFR 3.28 seeking to record a governmental interest must also (1) indicate that the document relates to a governmental interest and (2) indicate, if applicable, that the document to be recorded is not a document affecting title.

A patent cover sheet may not refer to trademark applications or registrations.

Form PTO-1595, Recordation Form Cover Sheet, may be used as the cover sheet for recording documents relating to patent(s) and/or patent application(s) in the Office.

302.08 Mailing Address for Submitting Assignment Documents [R-08.2012]

37 cfr 3.27  mailing address for submitting documents to be recorded..

Documents and cover sheets submitted by mail for recordation should be addressed to Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, unless they are filed together with new applications.

37 CFR 3.27 sets out how documents submitted for recording should be addressed to the Office. In order to ensure prompt and proper processing, documents and their cover sheets should be addressed to the Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, unless they are filed together with new applications. Requests for recording documents which accompany new applications should be addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

302.09 Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents [R-11.2013]

Assignments and other documents affecting title may be submitted to the Office via facsimile (fax). See the USPTO website or MPEP § 1730 for the facsimile number. This process allows customers to submit their documents directly into the automated Patent and Trademark Assignment System and receive the resulting recordation notice at their fax machine. The customer’s fax machine should be connected to a dedicated line because recordation notices will be returned automatically to the sending fax number through the Patent and Trademark Assignment System. If the Office system is unable to complete transmission of the recordation notice, the notice will be printed and mailed to the sender by U.S. Postal Service first class mail. Recorded documents will not be returned with the “Notice of Recordation.”

Any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile must include:

• (A) an identified application or patent number;
• (B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction; and
• (C) payment of the recordation fee by a credit card (use of the Credit Card form, PTO-2038 (see MPEP § 509 ), is required for the credit card information to be kept separate from the assignment records) or a USPTO Deposit Account.

The following documents cannot be submitted via facsimile:

• (A) Assignments submitted concurrently with newly filed patent applications;
• (B) Documents with two or more cover sheets (e.g., a single document with one cover sheet to record an assignment, and a separate cover sheet to record separately a license relating to the same property); and
• (C) Requests for “at cost” recordation services.

The date of receipt accorded to an assignment document sent to the Office by facsimile transmission is the date the complete transmission is received in the Office. See MPEP § 502.01 . The benefits of a certificate of transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 are available.

If a document submitted by fax is determined not to be recordable, the entire document, with its associated cover sheet, and the Office “Notice of Non-Recordation” will be transmitted via fax back to the sender. Once corrections are made, the initial submission, amended, may then be resubmitted by mailing the corrected submission to the address set forth in 37 CFR 3.27 . Timely resubmission will provide the sender with the benefit of the initial receipt date as the recordation date in accordance with 37 CFR 3.51 .

The Patent and Trademark Assignment System assigns reel and frame numbers and superimposes recordation stampings on the processed and stored electronic images. Accordingly, copies of all recorded documents will have the reel and frame numbers and recordation stampings.

302.10 Electronic Submission of Assignment Documents [R-10.2019]

• (i) Place a symbol comprised of letters, numbers, and/or punctuation marks between forward slash marks ( e.g. /Thomas O’ Malley III/) in the signature block on the electronic submission; or

37 CFR 1.4  Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.

• (i) The S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation, and the person signing the correspondence must insert his or her own S-signature with a first single forward slash mark before, and a second single forward slash mark after, the S-signature ( e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./); and
• (ii) A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2) , must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.
• (A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
• (B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
• (3) Electronically submitted correspondence . Correspondence permitted via the Office electronic filing system may be signed by a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or a graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section when it is submitted via the Office electronic filing system.
• (i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
• (ii) Certification as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
• (5) Forms. The Office provides forms for the public to use in certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms ( e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms, and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form, other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to, if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.

Assignments and other documents affecting title may be submitted to the Office via the Office’s Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS). See the USPTO website at http://epas.uspto.gov for additional information regarding EPAS.

Any assignment related document submitted by EPAS must include:

• (A) an identified application or patent number; and
• (B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction which cover sheet is to be completed on-line.

The fee set in 37 CFR 1.21(h)(1) for recording an electronically submitted document is currently $0. Customers should check the current fee schedule on the Office website before submitting documents for recordation. If a recordation fee is required, see MPEP § 509 for detailed information pertaining to the payment of fees.

For an assignment document filed electronically, the signature of the person who signs the cover sheet must comply with 37 CFR 3.31(a)(7) or 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) .

The date of receipt accorded to an assignment document sent to the Office by EPAS is the date the complete transmission is received in the Office.

If a document submitted by EPAS is determined not to be recordable, the entire document, with its associated cover sheet, and the Office "Notice of Non-Recordation" will be transmitted via fax back to the sender if possible. Once corrections are made, the initial submission, as amended, may then be resubmitted by mailing the corrected submission to the address set forth in 37 CFR 3.27 . Timely submission will provide the sender with the benefit of the initial receipt date as the recordation date in accordance with 37 CFR 3.51 .

• 301.01-Accessibility of Assignment Records
• 302.01-Assignment Document Must Be Copy for Recording
• 302.02-Translation of Assignment Document
• 302.03-Identifying Patent or Application
• 302.04-Foreign Assignee May Designate Domestic Representative
• 302.05-Address of Assignee
• 302.06-Fee for Recording
• 302.07-Assignment Document Must Be Accompanied by a Cover Sheet 
• 302.08-Mailing Address for Submitting Assignment Documents
• 302.09-Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents
• 302.10-Electronic Submission of Assignment Documents
• 303-Assignment Documents Not Endorsed on Pending Applications
• 304‑305-[Reserved]
• 306.01-Assignment of an Application Claiming the Benefits of a Provisional Application
• 307-Issue to Non-Applicant Assignee
• 308-Issue to Applicant
• 309-Restrictions Upon Employees of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• 310-Government License Rights to Contractor-Owned Inventions Made Under Federally Sponsored Research and Development
• 311-Filing of Notice of Arbitration Awards
• 312-[Reserved]
• 313-Recording of Licenses, Security Interests, and Documents Other Than Assignments
• 314-Certificates of Change of Name or of Merger
• 315-Indexing Against a Recorded Certificate
• 316-[Reserved]
• 317.01-Recording Date
• 317.02-Correction of Unrecorded Returned Documents and Cover Sheets
• 317.03-Effect of Recording
• 318-Documents Not to be Placed in Files
• 319-[Reserved]
• 320-Title Reports
• 321‑322-[Reserved]
• 323.01(a)-Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet
• 323.01(b)-Typographical Errors in Recorded Assignment Document
• 323.01(c)-Assignment or Change of Name Improperly Filed and Recorded by Another Person Against Owner’s Application or Patent
• 323.01(d)-Expungement of Assignment Records
• 324-Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
• 325-Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012

• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Emergencies/Security Alerts
• Information Quality Guidelines
• Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act
• Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act
• Budget & Performance
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Department of Commerce NoFEAR Act Report
• Regulations.gov
• STOP!Fakes.gov
• Department of Commerce
• Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!)
• USPTO Webmaster

FAC Number: 2024-05 Effective Date: 05/22/2024

27.305-3 Securing invention rights acquired by the Government.

(a) Agencies are responsible for implementing procedures necessary to protect the Government’s interest in subject inventions . When the Government acquires the entire right, title, and interest in an invention by contract, the chain of title from the inventor to the Government shall be clearly established. This is normally accomplished by an assignment either from each inventor to the contractor and from the contractor to the Government, or from the inventor to the Government with the consent of the contractor. When the Government’s rights are limited to a license, there should be a confirmatory instrument to that effect.

(b) Agencies may , by supplemental instructions, develop suitable assignments, licenses, and other papers evidencing any rights of the Government in patents or patents applications. These instruments should be recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (see Executive Order 9424, Establishing in the United States Patent Office a Register of Government Interests in Patents and Applications for Patents, (February 18, 1944).

Definitions

FAC Changes

Style Formatter

• Data Initiatives
• Regulations
• Smart Matrix
• Regulations Search
• Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
• Large Agencies
• Small Agencies
• CAOC History
• CAOC Charter
• Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
• Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
• Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration