Remember Me
forgot your password?

Intellectual Property (ip) 101

"Intellectual Property (IP) 101"

IP includes patents, trademarks, and copyrights. A patent provides an exclusive right to an invention. A trademark provides an exclusive right to an indication of source of a product. A copyright provides an exclusive right to an original work. A service mark provides an exclusive right to a service or origin of a service.

United States copyrights accrue automatically, but a work must be registered with the United States Copyright Office to perfect the federal copyright. Trademark rights can also accrue without a federal registration, but those rights are weaker, and a federal registration is preferred in almost all situations.

United States patents and trademarks are obtained by filing an application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). An examiner in the USPTO examines the application for compliance with all statutory requirements. The USPTO issues complying applications and rejects non-complying applications. Often, a non-complying application can be amended, thereby placing it in condition for allowance. It is helpful to discuss possible amendments with the examiner in charge of the application prior to filing an amendment. Discussions with the examiner on how best to amend an application increase the chance that the amendment will result in allowance.

Trademarks and service marks identify your business to the purchaser of your product or service. Your mark allows a consumer to come back to you if he or she likes what you provide. If you have a trademark right, using your trademark prevents someone else from using a similar mark that is likely to confuse the public into buying goods from them instead of you.

Patents provide a limited monopoly on your company’s product or process. Monopoly translates into high profit margins due to exclusion of competition. Patents can be obtained on any invention that complies with the statutory requirements, which are that the invention is useful, novel, and non-obvious. The prevailing case law allows patents on just about anything, for example, it allows patents on computer implemented methods of calculating useful results, and on computer implemented methods of doing business.

Obtaining United States patents and trademark rights is expensive, primarily due to the amount of high hourly rate attorney time required to prepare an application and guide it through the USPTO. For patents, part of that cost can be deferred by initially filing a relatively simple provisional patent application. The filing date of a provisional application is prima facie (evidence legally sufficient to establish a fact unless subsequently disproved by additional evidence) proof of the date of invention. A provisional patent application protects for one year the right to pursue patent protection on the novel aspects of a product or process at a very low cost. However, provisional applications do not issue into patents. They simply preserve the filing date for an invention for up to one year. Within one year of the filing date of the provisional application, it must be followed by filing a more formal US application and any foreign applications in foreign countries in which protection is sought. If the formal applications are not filed, the benefit of the early filing date of the provisional application is lost.

Who Owns Your Invention?

Who owns your invention? Who owns your employee’s invention? Invention ownership disputes occur all too frequently. However, invention ownership disputes are easily avoidable with the proper foresight and knowledge.

Our legal system presumes that the inventor is the owner of the exclusive rights in his or her invention. How then, does someone other than the inventor obtain the rights to the inventor’s invention? The answer to that question is by an assignment. The assignment can be an express assignment, which is typically a written document evidencing a contract between the inventor and the assignee in which the inventor sells the rights to the invention to the assignee. However, that type of assignment is not what leads to ownership disputes. Ownership disputes occur when there is no express assignment and both the inventor and his or her employer think that they own the invention. This is because the presumption that the inventor owns the invention is incorrect in certain situations, even without an express assignment.

An employer of one who is "hired to invent" owns the rights to the inventor’s inventions. The Supreme Court came to that conclusion in the Standard Parts Co. v. Peck case in 1924. However, that is the extreme case, since the vast majority of employees are not employed to invent. What about an employee employed to design or construct, such as an engineer? An employee employed in a field of endeavor in order to design or construct is not equivalent to an employee employed for the purpose of invention. That was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. in 1933. However, that conclusion leaves open the question of who owns the invention made by the engineer. The outcome in each ownership case depends on the relationship between the employee, the employer, and the circumstances of the invention.

Even if it turns out that the employee owns his or her invention, if the employee used the employer’s materials or equipment during working hours to make the invention, the law grants the employer a nonexclusive license to the invention. That has been the law ever since the Supreme Court Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke case in 1893.

It should be apparent that the best way to avoid an ownership dispute is to reduce to a written contract between the employee and the employer who owns the rights to any inventions made by the employee, and that agreement should be defined as early as possible in the employee employer relationship.

Substantial information on patents and trademarks is provided at the USPTO’s website at http://www.uspto.gov.

Copyright Richard A. Neifeld, President, Neifeld IP Law, PC

If you have any other questions or need further information please feel free to contact us via email at http://www.neifeld.com.

Richard A. Neifeld

Richard Neifeld, Ph.D.
Patent Attorney
Email address: general @ neifeld.com
Education
J.D. The George Washington University Law School 1994 Ph.D. Rutgers University (Solid State Physics) 1985 B.S./B.A. University of Rochester (Physics and Mathematics)
(Cum Laude and Honors) 1980

Experience

Neifeld IP Law P.C. - 2002

Partner in the IP law firm of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, PC. - 1996

Patent Attorney - 1994

Patent Agent - 1992

Patent Technical Consultant - 1990

Staff Scientist for the U.S. Army's Laboratory Command - 1986

Post-doctoral Fellow, Rutgers University - 1985-1986

Former chair of the Interference Committee and current chair of the Services Subcommittee of the Interference Committee of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA). Member of the AIPLA, American Bar Association, Maryland Patent Lawyers Association, and the Patent Information Users Group. Extensive experience in "specialty matters" in the U.S. patent office, such as appeals, petitions, reexaminations, reissues, public protests, and extensive experience in foreign prosecution, and interferences and related litigation. Extensive experience in due diligence work, including investigations, database searching, and opinions.

Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Virginia State Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Widely published in IP law publications, frequent lecturer to patent attorneys on patent law topics, and an active member of the patent bar associations. Founder and moderator for the popular "patentinterference" group on the groups.yahoo.com/group/patentinterference web site, which is a forum for general information on patent law and practice with a focus on patent interference issues.

Co-founder of the www.PatentValuePredictor.com automated patent valuation service, co-inventor of the underlying macro-economic model for valuing patents, and programmer of some of the code powering the automated valuations.

Five years of scientific research in applied physics areas of electro-optics, III-V materials, microwaves, vacuum deposition technology, superconductors, and electronics directed towards the U.S. Army's electronics, communication, and signal processing needs.

Rate this Article: 0 / 5 stars - 0 vote(s)
Print Email Re-Publish

Add new Comment



Captcha

  • Latest Patents Articles
  • More from Richard A. Neifeld

Paedophile register UK

By: Dominic Ericsson | 19/12/2009
Info on staying safe online and a new online UK paedophile register.

Marketing your Invention

By: Russell Williams | 11/12/2009
When inventors contact my company, InventionHome.com about Due Diligence I like to explain the concept with a simple example.

Patent Pending - How to Protect Your Ideas and Inventions With a Patent

By: Natalia Harrison | 09/12/2009
Understanding how to protect your ideas with a patent may sound difficult but the process is real easy. A patent is a license given to an investor like you for a particular period of time. It will keep your ideas safe.

Recommended Desktop Computers

By: anthony turner | 03/12/2009
Recommended Desktop Computers: With technology stirring up new innovations every day, computers have taken a large part in most peoples lives, both young and old. There are many options.

How to Patent and Idea

By: Russ Williams | 25/11/2009
Learning how to patent an idea is often the first step in the invention and patent process for new inventors. When inventors contact my company, InventionHome.com about the patent process and learning how to patent an idea, we believe they should start by learning about provisional patent applications vs. utility (non-provisional) patent applications.

The answers to all your prototype questions!

By: Russell Williams | 18/11/2009
In this article I will discuss the three most popular questions I receive when it comes to a prototype. What is a prototype? Should I develop a prototype? Reasons to develop a prototype.

Steps to Conduct a Patent Search

By: John Mathew | 10/11/2009
A patent refers to the right granted to an inventor for discovering any new machine, useful process or a manufacturing item.

Can I really sell my idea?

By: Russell Williams | 06/11/2009
Yes; however, it is important to understand what you need to have in place to increase your odds of success. As you move your idea through the invention and patent process, your odds of success increase as your idea becomes more tangible and real.

The CAFC Decision in Tafas v. Doll (Fed. Cir. 3/20/2009)

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 19/07/2009 | Patents
On March 20, 2009, a panel of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") decided the USPTO's appeal of the District Court decision enjoining the USPTO's rules limiting applicants’ rights to file claims, continuations, and Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). However, the panel was fractured, with a two panel member majority opinion (Judges Prost and Bryson), a concurrence (Judge Bryson), and a concurrence in part and dissent in part (Judge Radar).

The Decision on Rehearing in Amgen, Inc. v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGS) -

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 03/07/2009 | Patents
The Decision on Rehearing in Amgen, Inc. v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGS) - Interference 105,613 - Teaching Points on Interference Practice

Can you Sue "the State" for Patent Infringement?

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/05/2007 | Intellectual Property
Review of case law regarding protecting patents from infringement by the state.

Strategies for Preparing for a Patent Interference

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/04/2007 | Patents
Preparing for a successful patent interference and clues one winning.

Comments on United States Patent Assignment Information

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/04/2007 | Patents
The text below is a copy of an email that I sent the Patent Interference User's Group (PIUG) on November 4, 2003, regarding United States Patent Assignment Information. My email was in response to a chain of emails discussing contents and accuracy of assignment information provided by the commercial database providers.

Electronic Notebooks and the Requirements to Prove Date of Invention in Patent Interferences

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/04/2007 | Patents
This paper contains an excerpt of an email I sent to the PIUG (Patent Information User's Group) email distribution list on November 30, 2003.

A Supplemental Note on the Medical Practitioner's Act

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/04/2007 | Patents
immunity from liability from patent infringment

Patent Valuation From a Practical View Point, and Some Interesting Patent Value Statistics From the Patentvaluepredictor Model

By: Richard A. Neifeld | 24/04/2007 | Patents
A review of how to treat patents from a financial and tax reporting standpoint.

Submit Your Articles Free: Signup
Article Categories




Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy | User published content is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Copyright © 2005-2008 Free Articles by ArticlesBase.com, All rights reserved. (0.06, 1, w3)