Cross-Border Inventors

The number of inventors per patent has been steadily increasing over the past forty years. Patents issued during the past six months, have an average of 2.7 inventors per patent. In all, 68% of these patents list multiple inventors with 13% listing five or more inventors. Prior to 1990, most patents listed only one inventor.

I wanted to look at cross-border or transnational inventing. To do that, I pulled-up all patents that listed inventors from two or more separate nations. For this, I used the inventor's country of residence that is typically supplied when a patent application is filed. Patents with a US inventor (US patents) had an 8% rate of including a cross-border inventor. For US patents, Germany was the most likely country of residence for collaborators. Of the top-10 patenting countries, Japan had the lowest rate of cross-border inventorship at 3% while 48% of Swiss patents listed a non-Swiss inventor. The table below provides more comparative values.

Inventor Country 

Percent that Included Cross-Border Inventor 

Most Likely Country of Co-Inventor 

US 

8% 

Germany 

Japan

3% 

US 

Germany

20% 

US 

Korea

4% 

US 

Taiwan

10% 

China 

Canada

26% 

US 

Great Britain

36% 

US 

France

26% 

US 

China

38% 

US 

Switzerland

48% 

Germany 

Italy

22% 

US 

Israel

23% 

US 

Netherlands

33% 

US 

Australia

19% 

US 

[Updated] Assignees with the most cross-border patents include IBM, Microsoft, Hong Fu Jin Precision Industry (Shenzhen), Intel, Cisco, GE, Schlumberger, Nokia, HP, ExxonMobile, Novartis, and Infineon. Several readers e-mailed and correctly noted that continental European cross-border co-inventorship should be expected because many Europeans cross a border for their jobs. Apparently, Novartis' main building is in Basel Switzerland, but is so close to the border that one Novartis parking lot is actually in France. University of California has a large number of US-China co-invented patents that likely arise from Chinese graduate students seeking their PhD in the US.

Note on the data: The table above includes a classification for "inventor country." The "inventor countries" of a patent include all countries that are designated as the country of residence for at least one of the inventors. Thus, a single patent may be classified as both a US patent and a German patent if there were inventors from each nation. The inventors submit their country of residence as part of the patent application process. The country of residence may be different from the nationality or correspondence address.

Note on spelling: I injured my shoulder this past week and will now be typing with one hand for a while.

 

51 thoughts on “Cross-Border Inventors

  1. 51

    lulz Cy – let’s leave that for the sockpuppet conspiracy theorists, shall we?

    But Iza gotsa say – my humor, the golden observations that I share for everyone to bask in, be like a warm, thick blanket that keeps my heart from goin cold, and my soul from becomin empty.

  2. 49

    CY – it appears that Ol Maxi thinks that you be me.

    Maxie, if you did have a Nical for every piece of rubbish on this blog, less the Nical you would have to pay for your rubbish, you would be no better off than you are today.

    But thanks for trying to rev up the chuckle machine.

  3. 48

    If I could have a Nical for every piece of rubbish on this blog that gets picked up and ping-ed, I would be a rich man.

  4. 44

    Ianae; Identifying the true conciever wont be possible without requiring corperations to file before beginning r+d and many dishonest countries will not like this theyve been stealing from myself and the U.S. for to long.Recognizing the problem and correcting past injustices ar all key to creating an integritious patent system.The squandered billion doller patent reform fund is classic exaqmple of fraud and corruption the individules would not accept any of my ideas they and big business should be required to repay the government.

  5. 43

    Yes if implemented with the correct rules it could create the pressure nessary to get worldwide co-operation behind the true inventor

    Now that you mention it, worldwide cooperation would be a great idea.

    What we really need is some kind of system where the inventor can file a single document with a single government agency prior to any public disclosure, and that single document establishes the inventor’s right to patent that invention as of the filing date in like a hundred different countries. Maybe more, if it catches on.

    If we combine that with your earlier idea that companies have to pay inventors who work for them, we could really be on to something.

  6. 42

    Thanks sarah; Yes if implemented with the correct rules it could create the pressure nessary to get worldwide co-operation behind the true inventor instead of the divide and conquor method now in practice that destroys the incentive to create and robs human advancement.

  7. 40

    R.R.Hirwani; If the patent system isent straightened out they arent going to have anything to develop.Soon if the i.p. thefts dont stop inventors will have to obtain guaranteed patent granting in all countries before filing or revealing the contents.

  8. 39

    thats just an attempt to instil a sence of gratitude in persons that have no capacity for it

    Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket!

  9. 38

    A large number of multinationals have set up R&D centres in India.Any Idea about co-inventors from India?

  10. 37

    Ianae; No technically it was unconcieved and on no automobile until 1954 fords. Well maybe if your real invention backdater the 1493 rolls canardley may have had them.No ianae thats just an attempt to instil a sence of gratitude in persons that have no capacity for it.The land was stolen from us in 1830 although it was to large a piece to utilize controling immigration was the largest concern to keep the rif raf out abviously we were unsucessful.

  11. 36

    ford did not have power windows o its 1941 models.

    Well no, technically it was only available on a single model in 1941 – the Lincoln Custom.

    Some of them are still around today and available for purchase. You can google around and find some with power windows. Presumably those were all built in the late 50s to retcon the date of invention. Very disorienting for people old enough to remember what kind of car they had in 1941.

    my great grandfather discovered the western hemispheres so why dont you get out of the territories.

    Sure, no problem. Show me your legal title to the land I’m on, and I’ll move along.

  12. 35

    Ianae; ford did not have power windows o its 1941 models.You just created that to fit the situation just like the thieves twist history in every direction as a method of stealing inventions.Ailian lutz; The three grand fathers are three of the the four greatest inventors in history myself being the last my great grandfather discovered the western hemispheres so why dont you get out of the territories.

  13. 34

    ord motors reduced to practice in less than one month and had the power windows and seats on their 1954 models.

    Fun fact: Ford had power windows in 1941, and power seats at around the same time.

    Of course, that all makes sense if DeLorean stole your invention first.

  14. 33

    I concieved with my mother and father

    One has to wonder which planet this individual is from that he concieves himself. Perhaps this is related [pardon the pun] to the fact that he has three grandfathers.

  15. 32

    Ianae: I concieved with my mother and father of coursethrough hand and eye signals and ford motors reduced to practice in less than one month and had the power windows and seats on their 1954 models.I dident say their were a large number of witnesses you did.

  16. 31

    since 1953 the year of my birth.

    They stole inventions from you in the year of your birth?

    I’d say 9 months from conception to reduction to practice is pretty diligent under the circumstances, but I guess my real question is why there were so many witnesses of the alleged conception.

  17. 30

    Stolen Ip; Yes non involved refers to myself and I have not worked for any of the 10,000 approx companies and inventor groups claiming inventorship of the worlds top inventions since 1953 the year of my birth.A large number of inventors provides more witnesses of alleged conception therefor strengthening the case for the large group. Yes ive seen it in action all my life and havent recieved any credit or compensation for my inventions yet.My grandfathers had the same problem in there likespans dating back to 1803.

  18. 29

    I am glad I told the Martha story about Old Blue Eyes. That should put to rest the fact that I can get a copy. You can’t destroy evidence… That’s one good thing about the Legal system . And I also know that the Blue Application wasn’t destroyed either, for that very same reason.

  19. 28

    Secret,
    Instead of insulting me, maybe YOU should read the statute. Once again, 35 USC 185 is NOT general, but applies to a SPECIFIC CASE – filing an application outside of the USA. Co-inventing with a non-American, and using a non-citizen patent agent (or patent agent outside of the USA) are NOT THE SAME THING as filing the application/registering the invention in another jurisdiction.

    Once again, your blanket general comment to Alun is WRONG. As long as Alun does not write an app for a guided nuclear missle, as long as Alun does NOT file the application in a foreign country in violation of 35 USC 185, there is no statue or case law that I know about that would invalidate his clients’ patents. NONE.

    Unless someone wants to cite something. HOWEVER, please READ before you cite.

  20. 27

    Now your turn to explore the ethical rules. You do of course realize those rules apply to agents as well as to attorneys?

  21. 26

    anonymousAgent,

    You are really good at looking at the immediately preceding section, but not so good at looking at other sections in the general area.

    If I must spoon feed you, try 35 USC 185.

    35 U.S.C. 185 Patent barred for filing without license.

    Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, and his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall, without procuring the license prescribed in section 184 of this title, have made, or consented to or assisted another’s making, application in a foreign country for a patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of the invention. A United States patent issued to such person, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall be invalid, unless the failure to procure such license was through error and without deceptive intent, and the patent does not disclose subject matter within the scope of section 181 of this title.

    Perhaps no one answers you because you nitpick and don’t do your own research. No one likes a freeloader.

  22. 25

    Secret,
    As far as “15 CFR 764.3 – Sanctions.”

    (i) yeah, in the unlikely event that Alun drafts an applicaiton for a nuclear missle, Alun could get sanctioned and lose his license;
    (ii) as far as Alun’s clients, as long as they do NOT know taht Alun is not a citizen (and presuming he is a citizen is quite reasonable), it is quite difficult for me to see how his client’s would get sanctioned; AND
    (iii) I did NOT see loss of patent rights on the list of “sanctions.”

    FINALLY – noone has answered — however is dicslosure to Alun ANY ANY different from an invention jointly invented in the USA and in Canada (or Spain or Germany or even India)

  23. 24

    Secret,
    As far as 35 USC 182, the title “Abandonment of invention for unauthorized disclosure” is exciting but when you READ THE STATUTE, it refers to a case where there was a SPECIFIC ORDER was provided per 35 USC 181 (see below). In 99.9999% of the cases this NEVER happens – this would require ACTIVE involvment of the Atomic Energy Commission or the DOD!!!! So as long as Alun does not draft applications for Atomic energy or Defense technology, he would NOT run afoul of 35 USC 182. Furthermore, if you read 35 USC 182, it says the disclosure must be IN VIOLATION of the order – thus, Alun drafting the application BEFORE the order would not be IN VIOLATION of the order. Finally, it refers to ‘published or disclosed’ – I assume that this would refer to a PUBLIC disclosure only.
    ——————
    FROM 35 USC 181.
    “If, in the opinion of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or the chief officer of another department or agency so designated, the publication or disclosure of the invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent therefor would be detrimental to the national security, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or such other chief officer shall notify the Commissioner of Patents and the Commissioner of Patents shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires, and notify the applicant thereof. Upon proper showing by the head of the department or agency who caused the secrecy order to be issued that the examination of the application might jeopardize the national interest, the Commissioner of Patents shall thereupon maintain the application in a sealed condition and notify the applicant thereof. ”

  24. 23

    “… or creating large packs of liars to steal patents from noninvolved independent inventors.”

    Michael; could you please clarify what you mean?

    Does “noninvolved” refer to inventors not working at the subject company?

    How does a large(r) number of listed inventors (better?) enable to stealing of others inventions?

    Have you seen this in action?

    Thank you.

  25. 22

    Who says that Alun’s clients would lose rights?

    15 CFR 764.3 – Sanctions.

    35 U.S.C. 182 Abandonment of invention for unauthorized disclosure.

  26. 21

    Narc,
    Who says that Alun’s clients would lose rights? The client would ONLY lose rights if a first filing is made outside of the USA (by statute) However, where does it say ANYWHERE that exporting technology without a license causes the patent to be unenforcable? Please cite the statute or case law.
    (exporting without a license may be a criminal offense; this, however, is another matter).

    PS Nobody has yet to answer my earlier comment – i.e. I say that drafting an application outside of the USA (or by Alun, within the USA) is NO WORSE than a US inventor co-inventing with a non-US inventor (and both have to review the application to sign the oath – the non-US inventor receives the application into his/her IN-BOX in Germany or Spain or Canada or whatever).

  27. 20

    Mr. Palmer,

    In addition to ignoring export rules, are you aware that you are quite possibly ignoring Ethics Rules?

    § 10.47 Aiding unauthorized practice of law.

    (a)A practitioner shall not aid a non-practitioner in the unauthorized practice of law before the Office.

    (c)A practitioner shall not aid a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law.

    Seeing as the penalities for violating BIS include loss of your clients’ rights, I would think that your clients would and should care very much what your citizenship is.

  28. 19

    The export regulations are unworkable in terms of patents. For some time now there has been an export notice when you access PAIR:

    “I understand that technology and/or software included in patent applications may be subject to U.S. dual-use export controls, which are set out in the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. parts 730-774). Access to such technology and/or software by any person located outside the United States or by a foreign national inside the United States constitutes an export that may require a license from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). I affirm that I am not accessing or permitting access by others to technology or software in a manner that would violate or circumvent the Export Administration Regulations”.

    The problem is I am “a foreign national inside the United States”, and I am also a legal representative of the applicants, who don’t know, much less care, what my citizenship is.

    I don’t work on anything for the military, or even for defence contractors, but in the event that the invention is later determined to be ‘dual use’ the notice implies that I could be in trouble for accessing PAIR, which is ironic, given that I already have access to all the papers as filed before I access PAIR, and am only interested in the other side of the file wrapper, so to speak.

    Worse still, it implies that anyone who sends their prosecution to a firm with foreign nationals in it needs an export licence if the technology could be deemed ‘dual use’. Fortunately, I have seen no attempted enforcement. AFAIK everyone just ignores it.

    OTOH, in a previous job the firm did get a letter from the Dept. of the Navy saying that only US citizens could be given work from them, albeit after I had been doing it for a while already!

    NB: As a citizen of a NATO country I would be eligible for employment in the Dept. of the Navy, although presumably working there would be a breach of the export rules!

  29. 18

    ianae; No my original thesis is still intact. The original conception comes from me and without it the product would not exist. The inventor they hire has been in contact with me or in some cases has subinvented based on my previous art. of coures experimental observations are not inventions and chemical mixtures are not also. The companies presently have little incentive to deal with the inventor with the fourty diferent methods the present system has to srelieve the inventor of his I.P.

  30. 17

    What definition of country of residence is being used? For example, if a German researcher is working at a US university as part an exchange program or the like, what country is listed on the patent for that inventor? This should also get around most technology export issues assuming that all of the pre-publication work and communication is done strictly within the US.

  31. 16

    If they do know they only want to hire him to pick his brain then throw him away like the plague so they can keep the ideas for nothing. In many cases recently they stop spending because they have his intellectual property already … They only thing they wont do is fairly partnership with the true inventor

    Wait, are you saying that people other than you are actually inventing things?

    That would seem to cast doubt on your earlier thesis.

  32. 15

    Ianae;Many reasons like they dont know or believe who the true inventor is. If they do know they only want to hire him to pick his brain then throw him away like the plague so they can keep the ideas for nothing.In many cases recently they stop spending because they have his intellectual property already and dont want to waste anymore on unssucessful r+d.They only thing they wont do is fairly partnership with the true inventor because of greed and beligerent retartive ignorance.

  33. 14

    Rader thanks for putting me straight. Nevertheless, “eponymous” from IANAE strikes me as just the right word. Shenzhen is probably more of a real “business entity” than Cissco (sic) or Exxonmobile (sic).

  34. 13

    squandering trillions on unproductive r+d

    Actual for-profit businesses “squander” their money on R&D, too. Why do you think they do that, if the only real inventor in the world isn’t in their employ?

  35. 8

    In my last years at Nokia, there was a push to cut the cost of filings. So ideas that could be lumped together on one patent were. I guess they expected to split them if the patent offices ruled against the conglomeration. On one of my filings, three separate ideas were put together with six inventors.
    =========
    JOHN

    =========
    http://www.compareonlinebusiness.com” rel=”dofollow”>Business Company

  36. 7

    I was wondering how long it would take, before somebody mentioned National Security.

    I can see that the need for a Foreign Filing licence (FFL) would stop you filing first outside the USA. But by then it’s too late, isn’t it? Is there anything equivalent to the UK Official Secrets Act, in the way of US Government protective measures, to prevent the export of valuable technology that occurs at the outset, in the intercourse between the American and the German, that resulted in the conception of the invention, later the subject of the app for which you need a FFL?

  37. 6

    The invention forms in only one persons mind so co inventor status is incorrect. There is co developers and developer financiers partnerships and sub invention associated with the original invention though. Mostly its a legal conspiracy to create more witnesses on behalf of conspiracies to defraud the actual inventor by loosing him in a group or creating large packs of liars to steal patents from noninvolved independant inventors.

  38. 5

    Dennis,

    I am included on many applications with multiple inventors. But the increase in the number of co-inventors is not for the reasons that you would expect. In my last years at Nokia, there was a push to cut the cost of filings. So ideas that could be lumped together on one patent were. I guess they expected to split them if the patent offices ruled against the conglomeration. On one of my filings, three separate ideas were put together with six inventors. One of the ideas (from two coinventors) was reduced to two paragraphs and no claims keeping it non-patentable in the future. This practice became very discouraging to the inventors because you were very likely to no longer get your name at the top of the patent. In fact, several fellow employees stopped writing disclosures at this point.

  39. 4

    BIS regulations implore you to have an export license – but the only way to get one is for the Office to receive and process the application.

    This effectively means that you cannot draft an application co-invented by a US inventor outside of the USA.

    Prosecution, once an export license is obtained is another matter.

  40. 3

    What about technology export issues? For example, the PTO in 2008 noted that hazards of drafting an application outside of the USA because of technology export issues. Can a US-based practitioner email a draft of an application co-invented by a US inventor and a German inventor to the German co-inventor who resides outside of the USA? For example, some claims may have ONLY been invented in the USA.

  41. 2

    Well, the 48% for CH naming a DE as inventor is not that much of a surprise. What is a surprise (at least for me) is the next biggest number (38%) in the Table, that of CN applicants naming an American inventor. There are plenty of European multi-nationals sophisticated enough to set up a US corporate entity to conceive inventions within the world’s only “First to Invent” jurisdiction. But China? Already?

    At first I thought that that 38% must be a large percentage of a small, absolute number. But then I noted from your closing note that ShenZhen is up there with the biggest x-border patenters.

    I knew that Microsoft was inventing in China. Did they follow the Chinese, with the idea of boosting their innovation by putting a probe into the other jurisdiction?

    Good initiative Dennis. Thanks for these numbers.

  42. 1

    Dennis,
    Is the inventor country the nationality of the first inventor? The nationality of the majority of inventors?
    Also, it would be interesting what the other top countries of co-inventors are for inventions with US inventors.

Comments are closed.