首页> 外文期刊>Berkeley technology law journal >Inventorship, Double Patenting, and the America Invents Act
【24h】

Inventorship, Double Patenting, and the America Invents Act

机译:发明权,双重专利和美国发明法

获取原文
           

摘要

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) defines an "inventor" as "the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." Prior art that consists of a "disclosure .. . made by the inventor or joint inventor" or "subject matter [that] had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor," when disclosure is "made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention," is excepted from the novelty requirement. However, there is nothing in the AIA or its legislative history that specifies whether the "disclosure" by the inventor or joint inventor must be the work of the inventive entity of the invention claimed, or need only be the work of an individual member or subgroup of that inventive entity. Guidelines developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) do not clarify this issue. Early commentary on the AIA suggests that the work "disclosed" need not be that of the entire inventive entity. Such an interpretation, if confirmed by the courts, would be a radical and unnecessary departure from judicial precedent and would fundamentally change the effect of prior work by individuals on claimed joint inventions to which they contributed. The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, which limits inventors to a single patent for each invention considered patentably indistinct in view of another, would also be implicated, as would a recently proposed statutory alternative.
机译:2011年《 Leahy-Smith美国发明法》(AIA)将“发明人”定义为“个人或集体发明或发现发明主题的个人(如果是共同发明)”。当披露是“作出1时,”由“由发明人或共同发明人作出的披露……”或“在该披露之前由发明人或共同发明人公开披露的主题”构成的现有技术。要求新颖性的要求除外。”但是,AIA或它的立法历史中没有任何东西可以指明发明人或共同发明人的“披露”必须是所要求保护的发明的发明实体的作品,还是仅是单个成员或小组的作品该发明实体的名称。美国专利商标局(USPTO)制定的指南并未阐明此问题。关于友邦保险的早期评论表明,“公开”的作品不必是整个发明实体的作品。如果得到法院的确认,这种解释将是对司法先例的根本性和不必要的偏离,并将从根本上改变个人在先发明对他们所贡献的共同发明的影响。与最近提出的法定替代方案一样,也将涉及由司法创造的“显而易见性”类型的双重专利学说,该学说将发明人限制为每项发明因专利彼此之间的不同而被认为是不清楚的。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Berkeley technology law journal》 |2015年第2期|1613-1686|共74页
  • 作者

    N. Scott Pierce;

  • 作者单位

    Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C. in Concord, Mass. Suffolk University Law School;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号