AIA Shifts USPTO Focus from Inventors to Patent Owners

by Dennis Crouch

The new rules on inventor oaths make practical business sense, but they leave me somewhat pessimistic.  Metaphysically, the rules serve to crystallize the the US patent system's shift in focus away from inventors and toward corporate owners (and other non-human juristic entities).  Up to now, corporations were never considered patent applicants.  Rather, inventors were the applicants.  Even when the ultimate rights were owned by a corporate entity, the USPTO still focused on the inventors as the patent applicants.  Under the new rules being implemented on September 16, 2012, the status of “patent applicant” will no longer be keyed to inventorship but instead ownership.  Thus, any juristic entity who can show a proprietary interest will be permitted to file and prosecute a patent application as the patent applicant.  Of course, this change makes a fool of the first-inventor-to-file label given to the new US priority system during the political debates. Rather, the system truly is the first-owner-to-file. However, the change does fit within the same mental construct as the shift to a first-to-file system that largely turns a blind eye to inventive activities and instead focuses on paperwork (the essence of a corporate entity).  In recent years, we have seen a steady decrease in the percentage of inventor-owned patents.  For better or worse, there is no reason to believe that trend will change any time soon.

On a practical level, the change to the oath requirement itself is fairly narrow and will not ordinarily arise.  Under the new rules, the inventor will still ordinarily submit an oath or declaration of inventorship unless the inventors are unavailable or refuse. However, there are two major important changes: (1) a right-holding entity may file the patent application and wait to file the inventor's oath until the time that the application is otherwise in condition for allowance; and (2) defects in the listing of inventors can now (apparently) be corrected even if the original filing was done with deceptive intent.  These changes relieve some headache for corporate patent attorneys. However, I believe that this streamlined process does increase the likelihood that unscrupulous entities will overreach.

One “cure” for this potential problem is that the Office will now require all juristic entities (non-people) prosecuting applications to do so via a registered patent practitioner.  “Thus, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner…”  Obviously, this is a boon for US patent attorneys and patent agents.  It will create some struggle for very small corporate entities that continue to file applications pro se. However, my understanding of the rules is that the requirement to use a patent attorney/agent only exists if the juristic entity files as the applicant.  To avoid the requirement, the application could still be filed in the name of the actual inventors who retain the option of prosecuting the application pro se.

77 thoughts on “AIA Shifts USPTO Focus from Inventors to Patent Owners

  1. Alleging pro se filing is unauthorized practice of law is an illegal obstruction of justice attempt

  2. Of course until they get done corruptly inserting files around your valuable patent to steal it inter office payoff style you wont have the opertunity to sign for it although if you do then gotcha! a double fraudfirst your IP then jail time disgusting for purgury!

  3. Ive had the concept up on my website with no sucess for a few years of lien partnerships situations for unemployed or underemployed professionals or those wanting to develop and promote inventions to obtain angel investments and start there own business with me as a boardroom member. The partners need to be segrigated from the conciever inventor to diferentiate the limits of contractual involvement either published or unpublished in a referance numbered document with the number and descriptive language of leined intrests on the patent.

  4. I am more the puppet of the 1% thats been socked to many times to mention about 10000 top inventions worth

  5. Under penelty of purjury oath on patent issunce should remain but not on filing. First to file is one inventorship determination method they have to allow all methods to insure justice ive created about 10 that they are ignoring and obstructing justice in the process in congress.

  6. Not even a case of an argument that will be reasonably or should be reasonably herd. Stealinmg patentable subject matter needs to be herd and awarded triple damages for fraud attempt. What they are doing in AIA is allowing theft due to indegency inability to afford fileing and prosecution dispicable theft legalization instead of partneshipping with the 99% in the free market to pull us out of recession like ive done 6 times in a row. Clearly the most jobs retartive bill in history

  7. Jim, can a practitioner file a patent application without a best mode and not be disbarred or sent to prison (assuming the facts become known to the PTO) if client order him to do so ?

  8. Now your'e talking.  But how do we do that?  We can do  that now by "giving credit" in papers.  Perhaps we could do the same with patents.

    Good idea, here.  Very good.

  9. Naming more than one inventor should invalidate the patent automatically. There can be only one true conciever. There can be other persons of financial intrest though sub inventors developers designers constructors patent preparers ect.that should be listed although seperatly.

  10. Can anyone tell me why 18 USC 1001 would not still apply, oath or no oath, to any applicant or practitioner who misleads the PTO? It seems to me that eliminating the acknowledgement “under penalty of perjury” merely removes the warning to the applicant, without freeing him/her from the consequences.

  11. Ned,

    You wish to move, based on “validity.” I cannot in good conscience endorse your continued blindness and politely decline to accept your invitation. I would be doing you no favor to let you think that validity is the pinnacle of the discussion and leet you ignore basic law that also applies (and applies regardless of the America Invents Act).

  12. anon, there is no doubt that the new act has created complications for us.  Since we do not know whether a patent with incorrect inventorship is valid or not despite the repeal of 102(f), let me move on to the same topic, but were the validity issue is clear: best mode.

    The statute commands, "disclose best mode."  It also says, if you do not, no harm, no foul.

    Your client orders you to not disclose his best mode.  Do you file the application without it?

  13. Ned,

    This isn’t a case of “no argument;” rather, a case of “no argument that will be reasonably heard.”

    Sorry, but the lack of engagement stems from you. People can read for themselves your lack of commitment to engage the full issue and your insistence on over-applying the validity/derivation angle to the (improper) exclusion of other legal thoughts.

  14. late submission could be beneficial and progressive where espeionaging has caused the wrong conciever to be listed on the application It gives time for investigation of who should be paid. I am reasonably certain this was not there original intent but it may be a consequenctial benefit.But if there eliminating invenion clusters for an evidencing methods there also obstructing justice and retarting progress in consperacy with patent thieves

  15. You forget there can only be one true conciever the rest are subinvntor developers or persons or technical preperation skills. Without the conciever the invention doesent exist and never will

  16. I think JMs right here The corps have an illegal money monopoly to illegally exclude free market competition and previously stolen art patents to dominate in the courtroom. We need an antimonopoly legislation to return a level playing field to corperate conduct. At this point forced partnerships with inventors is the only logical way to break the cycle of owner greed and domiation of congressional legislation

  17. The important thing is to recognize concieving inventors. For a genuine inventor you need conception that leads to parent patent granting. Subinventors come in R+D stages and usually work under agreements For assigned instructed job duies and company concieved experiments asignment this is fair. But new coception should be a 1/3 2/3 split to keep the proper incentive to create the present your fired is unacceptable gustaposim.

  18. no its not what we need is a requirement of equal legal abilities to force attorneys and judges to level the playing field by giving free advice to the underdog indegents

  19. Where is the requirement of the corp to list the responsible owner on the patent. This concept has only one potential reason ..for law inclusion concielment of parties of intrest involved in iventorship frauds.

  20. I guess they want to change the inventor like they change there soiled shorts.We will make it our guy or gang up on him with a large clan of liars as long as the conciever doesent have a million dollers to fight us in court

  21. Imediate novelty check is another nessity conveniantly left out of reform legislation. Since 1960 and the establishment of interoffice secrecy files corrupt insertion frauds have been rampant and filing of valuable inventions has been just pure stupidity

  22. This regressive reform can only serve to force inventors to not reveal inventions until lockering of major corperations projects occurs to establish the true conciever and consider that the basis for uspto guaranteed patent granting

  23. The big problem here is invalidating doesent get a patent issued in the true concievers name and there can only be one. It apears to allow solen IP to be improved on without permission of the conciever. This puts the corp in a position of being the only ones to benefit from invalidity proving by still being in production of he product without a patent. The little guy gets trampled all the time here its indegency discrimination.The patent should be held invalid and subject to fraud reissuance and damages to the cheated conciever and only one can be the conciever

  24. As I aready explained, in that case, the risk of a disciplinary action against the patent attorney making or submitting a false inventorship declaration in the form of the “substitute statement” has far more serious consequences than oaths by inventors themselves, plus perjury if the PTO requires it to be in declaration form. Likewise for falsely representing that the inventors had refused to sign to be able to falsely use a “substitute statement.”
    P.S. I have had 44 years of professinal experience with patent application preperation, prosecution, and CLE in “big corporations” as you put it, and the kind of conduct you are falsly representing as likely to happen was simply not ever tolerated. If you are actually working in any company like that, which I doubt, you should leave before you lose your professional license, assuming you have one.

  25. Question, Section 116 requires:

    “(a) Joint Inventions- When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.”

    Section 282 states:

    “(b) Defenses- The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement
    of a patent and shall be pleaded:

    (2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability…. [the "conditions for patentability" sections are 102 and 103]

    (3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections section 112 or 251, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or

    Section 256 states

    (a) Correction- Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.

    (b) Patent Valid if Error Corrected- The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.

    102(f) has been repealed.

    Section 282 lists 102, 103, 112 and 251 as grounds for invalidity.

    My question is this: Is the patent invalid if one does not name all inventors or includes non inventors?

  26. So how do the corps feel that there going to get any original patentable marketable valuable invention like this. They really only get resentment for the frauds they want to commit. The reality is all the corps want is an espenoger called an inventor and they tell them to get a project or your fired so they come espenogeing to me the only source. instead of fairly partnershipping with me in the first place. They dont want to pay anything more for anything than they have to. So they conspire with R+D employees for wages or pay 1% to floor employees to get into a consperacy to buy stolen. and tell independnts they are not paying anything for patents so they dont produce anymore evidence to the contrary of there inability to concieve. In the mean time the top 200 inventions per year are black holed because there worth nothing to those with no money thats me.

  27. Michael, the inventor can still file his own patent application.  The problem is, the current law is also stacked against him in that his employment agreement may have assigned his rights away to Big. Corp. regardless.

  28. Another problem is no uspto registration provision of alleged pre employment agreements. They can basicaly say anything they want is what you signed.

  29. Thats like saying weel steal everything from you even your hands and you can go win bronze and forget about the ripoffs maybe you can make something off endorcements

  30. I would say so this AIA is the wholescale legalization of fraud against the inventor instead of correcting the 40 methods already inexistance to cheate him its criminaly disgusting

  31. your hands will be cut off by a huge mob of additional patent thieves all threatening murder. Now I guess youll be just out of luck

    The above comment has no place in a world where double amputees are winning gold medals.

  32. Big Corp., now we have an ideal ethics question for review, do we not?  You seem to think that we have a higher duty to represent the "inventor" when we are hired and paid by the company, and the "inventor" is hostile to the company.  I think this would be an excellent question for good professor Hricik to review.

  33. How about this example Mr Gustopo nazi cival rights preditor forces you to sign a assignment contract without reading the paper or your hands will be cut off by a huge mob of additional patent thieves all threatening murder. Now I guess youll be just out of luck because theres mysteriously no limiting provision of the scope of allowability in 238 pages of language

  34. Validity is most definitely not the only game in town.

    If you really think so, your clients deserve better and your malpractice carrier will likely want to have a word with you.

    (hint: do not just pigeon hole yourself to be the applicant’s representative)

  35. Regarding the requirement for practitioner, I wonder if a person who owns a patent application but it was not an inventor can still prosecute the application pro se?

  36. In war, all is fair.
     
    Validity is the only game in town.

    You represent the corporation. Your objective is to get them a valid patent. Period.

    If you fail to zealously represent them, you are failing in your job as an attorney. Period!!!!!

  37. Yup there totally throwing out my reform plan to improve iventorship determination methods,conception must first be correctly determined to eliminate some of 40 methods that inventions are stolen and adding new ones eliminating the incentive to create and black holing all the top inventions. There elimiating invention clusters as an evidencing method to obstruct justice for cheated inventors to ever recieve justice after originally being riped. It looks like inventors estates now will be riped for there intellectual properites as well. theyve trashed my perfect provisions for vile corruption. is there an attorney in the house I say indite the involved parties and vote them our of office and reverse there damages to restart american invention.

  38. Mr. big Corp., let me ask you this, if you file an application naming one co-inventor, but fail to name any others, and that coinventor can file a oath stating that "(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention," has the coinventor committed perjury?

    As we know, nothing you can do in this regard is going to affect the validity of the patent.

  39. Paul, "(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention…"

    I think most bosses believe they are at least coinventors and can sign such an oath.  There it seems to be no penalty, however, for omitting any inventors.  All you really need to have is one named inventor, and all he has to do is believe he is a coinventor.

  40. Amazing 238 pages and not one deals with any limits of the scope op the basic single provision of forced agreements under duress being legalized unconstitutionally. No language of the scope of what should be the limitation to the correct reporting of results of asigned experimets. And no recognition of my concept of partnershipping on genuine employee inventions 1/3 for inventor 2/3 for business. This is not even good practice for the business to attempt to steal Inventor IP it just breeds resentment. I guess most new hires are now requiring it or they wont hire so there rip attempt wont be sucessful

  41. Actually its all designed to accomplish corperate espionage, inventor murder and musical inventors that are actually subinventors. Anytime they dont want to devulge the actual inventorsomething is crooked

  42. And Paul, I am still waiting for your answer to:

    tell me how do you have perjury of an inventor’s declaration, when you have a case in which the inventor refuses to make a declaration?

    Please don’t disappear without giving an answer (and saying that the occurance is rare is not an answer).

  43. Paul,

    In no way do I imply that there does not exist pre-AIA special circumstances.

    I most emphatically emphasize that the AIA creates a substantial new situation with the substitute statement.

    Let’s not try to purposefully obscure what the new law brings to the table. Let’s not misrepresent what I have actually stated. It is you that is attempting to minimize and misrepresent the new law.

    And your “vanguard” of not risking their career is pure hogwash. People break rules NOW. You also would need to establish that the advocate KNOWINGLY filed a false substitute statement. Do the words “plausible deniability” mean anything to you?

    You are either being hopelessly naive, or you really do not have a clue how Big Corp works. The world is not an ideal place and pretending that it is is very dangerous.

  44. For the present laws on filing applications without inventor oaths in limited special circomstances that you seem to be denying the existence of, see in particular 35 USC 117 and 118.
    —————–
    Under the new rules a corporation filing and prosecuting a patent application must be represented by a registered patent attorney or agent. They are not going to risk their entire career [not just invalidating that patent] by filing a false “substitute statement” alledging that one of those narrow exceptions applies that avoids inventor oaths or making a false inventorship designation on the application, as any complaint by the inventors or anyone else will result in a PTO disciplinary investigation.
    The implimentation of the AIA is going to be difficult enough, especially for those opposed to change, without confusing any remaining readers of these comments with continuing Don Quixote challenges and missrepresentations of the law.

  45. Paul,

    It is quite disingenuous to ignore the correction provided and repeat your error as if you never saw the correction at all.

    Continue your reading until (once more? For the first time?) you understand what I already told you.

  46. They are similar to the special situations provided for in present applications.

    You are really falling behind if you believe that.

    You don’t really believe that Paul, do you?

    And your “still requires” ignores the very exception just provided – tell me how do you have perjury of an inventor’s declaration, when you have a case in which the inventor refuses to make a declaration?

  47. Here is the new, AIA, 35 U.S.C. 115:

    “Inventor’s oath or declaration.

    (a) Naming the Inventor; Inventor’s Oath or Declaration- An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application.
    (b) Required Statements- An oath or declaration under subsection (a) shall contain statements that–
    (1) the application was made or was authorized to be made by the affiant or declarant; and
    (2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.”

  48. Yes, of course, but those expressly limited “PERMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES” for a “substitute statement” “In lieu of executing an oath or declaration” are NOT normal patent application situations. They are similar to the special situations provided for in present applications.

    The PTO new rules commentary also makes it clear that an inventor “declaration” still requires a penalty of purjury clause.

  49. It used to be that if named a boss non inventor, there generally was no validity challenge so long as the inventors who contributed to the novel subject matter were also named as well. But now, with the repeal of 102(f), it really makes no difference at all who is named from a validity point of view.

    I can understand that if one does not name the true inventor, there may be political problems inside the corporation. The true inventor may quit in anger, and that is not a good thing at all.

    But, what if the true inventor has quit before the application is filed and is not (or at least not clearly) under an obligation to assign? What then?

    If one names the boss, the company owns the application. The ex employee may be pissed off, but unless he files his own application and challenges the inventorship under the derivation sections 135 and 291, there seems to be no downside at all. A third party has no standing to raise the inventorship issue in defense of an infringement claim.

    What possibly could go wrong?

    Think Stanford v. Roche, but vary the facts that the employee who had done work at “Roche” was not named because of “complication” with his assignment status. Would Roche have had any standing to complain? The omitted inventor might, but only if he filed his own patent application.

  50. If you want real Zzzzz’s, count the number of times MM self defeats with his Prometheus 9 – 0 [oldstep] + [newthought] banality.

  51. It might become best practice simply to name the owner as the inventor.

    Not necessary. See my post above and the ready option of the permitted substitute statement.

  52. Try to keep up Paul:

    § 115. Inventor’s oath or declaration
    (d) SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of executing an oath or declaration under subsection (a), the applicant for patent may provide a substitute statement under the circumstances described in paragraph (2) and such additional circumstances that the Director may specify by regulation.

    (2) PERMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES.—A substitute statement under paragraph (1) is permitted with respect to any individual who—

    (A) is unable to file the oath or declaration under subsection (a) because the individual—
    (i) is deceased;
    (ii) is under legal incapacity; or
    (iii) cannot be found or reached after diligent effort; or

    (B) is under an obligation to assign the invention but has refused to make the oath or declaration required under subsection (a).

  53. Copy from the PTO FR Notice for the new rules:
    “The changes to 35 U.S.C. 115 in the
    AIA do not affect 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(2),
    which continues to require that an
    application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
    include an oath or declaration as
    prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 115, and 35
    U.S.C. 111(a)(3), which continues to
    permit the oath or declaration to be
    submitted after the filing date of the
    application, but within such period and
    under the conditions prescribed by the
    Director, …”

  54. Consider the following (unscrupulous) hypothetical, set in the summer of 2013:

    Big Corp, run by CEO Mr. B. Sleaze, has in its employ Dr. Smartguy. Dr. Smartguy dreams of sticking it to the man and wants to eventually have his own start-up company.

    Separately, Mr. Sleaze has a gardener, Jane Greenthumb, who likes to ‘talk shop” (Miss Greenthumb is independently wealthy and gardens just to

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  55. If the application is actually owned by a corporation or partnership, pro se prosecution is unauthorized practice of law, without a doubt. if the application is jointly owned by the inventors, each with a right to prosecute, then probably not. The key difference is, it is not pro se if the rights belong to another entity.

  56. Consider the following (unscrupulous) hypothetical, set in the summer of 2013:

    Big Corp, run by CEO Mr. B. Sleaze, has in its employ Dr. Smartguy. Dr. Smartguy dreams of sticking it to the man and wants to eventually have his own start-up company.

    Separately, Mr. Sleaze has a gardener, Jane Greenthumb, who likes to ‘talk shop” (Miss Greenthumb is independently wealthy and gardens just to suit her passion). Jake Notassmartashethinks is a friend of Miss Greenthumb and often visits Miss Greenthumb on her breaks, which she takes just off of Mr. Sleaze’s property. Jake has no connection to Jane, Big Corp, Mr. Sleaze or Dr. Smartguy and envisions himself a tinkerer. He too, is independently wealthy.

    Mr. Sleaze seeks to impede Dr. Smartguy and files seven applications (with Big Corp as applicant) naming Dr. Smartguy as co-inventor, thereby destroying Dr. Smartguy’s micro-entity status. Dr. Smartguy is actually a co-inventor on only one application. Incensed at Big Corp’s shenanigans, Dr. Smartguy refuses to sign any inventor oaths at all, and secretly marvels at the six other applications as the inventions disclosed are truly breathtaking. As it turns out, Mr. Sleaze actually overheard the inventions being discussed by Jake between Jake and Jane during Jane’s break (Jane had signed a hefty non-disclosure agreement), and sent a spy named Iam Piratesupreme to sneak in to Jake’s place and make a copy of Jake’s lab books. It is highly unlikely that Jake would ever be able to prove that Iam obtained the material from Jake.

    One week prior to the filing by Big Corp, Jake publishes his lab books, but does so in Zimbabwe and in coded Navajo (as if publishing in Navajo was tricky enough).

    The filings by Big Corp make miniscule and only obvious changes (in part to mask the fact that Big Corp could not have possibly invented six of the seven inventions). Big Corp publishes the seven applications one month after filing.

    Jake and Jane are chatting when the news of the Big Corp publication breaks, and Jane immediately denies having divulged anything, but clearly and distinctly recalls that Mr. Sleaze was hovering nearby on the only day that Jake had talked about his inventions. Jake rushes off and files six applications that day based only on his own work.

    To make things even more interesting, Dr. Smartguy’s employment contract (signed in California, where Dr. Smartguy works) only includes a clause saying Dr. Smartguy is obligated to assign his inventions to Big Corp (i.e. in an odd paragraph, present assignment of future inventions is expressly disavowed – the attorney drafting the contract has recently been let go from Stanford). Big Corp is headquartered in Nevada, and does the majority of its principal work (including the subject matter of the purported inventions) in Delaware.

    Who owns what and why? Who, if anyone, will be able to obtain a patent? What advice to you give, if properly retained, to each character?

    By the way, this has been published and is copyrighted, all rights reserved.

  57. thank god. Now if they’d just translate and include all JP patents, KR patents and chinese patents I’d be good to go.

  58. “To avoid the requirement, the application could still be filed in the name of the actual inventors who retain the option of prosecuting the application pro se.”

    Isn’t this called the unauthorized practice of law?

  59. Now that the Oath/Declaration can be submitted after NOA, for a PCT application entering US national phase, does the charge for late submission Oath/Declaration (after 30-month deadline) still apply?

  60. Paul, as Big Corp says, the penalty of perjury language has been removed.

    Another point, the requirement of an oath is made of the “named” inventor, who is not required by any remaining law to be an inventor. Why? Because there is no penalty whatsoever. An obligaton without a penalty is no obligation at all.

    It might become best practice simply to name the owner as the inventor.

  61. Well, what do you know? Turns out Ronald J Riley or whatever his name is was right, patent reform is fraud on america.

  62. Frankly, the US is the only country left which still considers the inventors to be the “Applicants.” Inventors who work for companies they are generally required to assign all patent rights to the company, anyway. To call the inventors the applicants in those situations is really a legal formality that for all purposes is fiction. The changes referred to here simply reflect the reality that when inventors work for large corporations, they are not the parties with the main ownership interest in the research.

  63. However, note that under the new U.S rules and statute an inventorship oath under penalty of purjury from the actual inventors must still be signed and filed before the patent can issue.

    On the contrary, this is not the case.

  64. Yes, I was also surprised this issue did not draw more flak before the AIA passed, even though other countries have always had assignee filings even for U.S. inventors.
    However, note that under the new U.S rules and statute an inventorship oath under penalty of purjury from the actual inventors must still be signed and filed before the patent can issue.
    One advantage of assingee filings is eliminating the dubious common old U.S. practice of patent attorneys filing and prosecuting applications with a power of attorney from employee-inventors [rather tha the employer] when those inventors are not the real party in interest and do not actually represent the inventors because the inventors do not own the invention and the attorney was hired by their employer.

  65. Hundred to one odds that Ned Heller will (once again) post incorrectly on Pirates and constitutional issues.

Comments are closed.