Inventor's Interests, If Not Rights, Limited by S. 23

By Kevin E. Noonan --

The "America Invents Act" (S. 23; aka the patent reform bill) makes significant changes in the power of an assignee, or someone who has obligated an inventor to assign, to file an application without obtaining an oath or declaration (or even permission or knowledge) of the inventor, raising an interesting Constitutional question as discussed below.

This change is effected by Section 3 of the bill as passed by the Senate, which amends 35 U.S.C. § 115.  As in the current version of § 115, new § 115(a) provides that an application requires the name of the inventor or inventors and an oath or declaration stating that the application was made (or was authorized to be made) by the affiant/declarant, and that the individual believes himself/herself to be the original sole or joint inventor of the claimed invention.  In the first of several delegations of authority from the statute to the Director, § 115(c) gives the Director the right to "specify additional information relating to the inventor and the invention that is required to be included in an oath or declaration."

It is in new § 115(d) that the effects of the changes begin to become evident.  Section 115(d)(1) contains provisions similar to those under the current law, where an assignee can file an application in the name of an inventor who is deceased, "under legal incapacity" or "cannot be found after diligent effort."  Section 115(d)(2) does away with all of these requirements, providing merely that a "substitute statement" can be filed by anyone to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign but has refused.  The substitute statement under these circumstances must contain the identification of the individual, "set forth the circumstances representing the permitted basis for the filing of the substitute statement in lieu of the oath or declaration" and (again) "any additional information, including any showing, required by the Director.

New § 115(e) permits the "required statements" of §§ 115(b) and (c) to be included in the assignment document, and new § 115(f) prohibits the Director from issuing a Notice of Allowance unless there has been submitted "each required oath or declaration under subsection (a) or has filed a substitute statement under subsection (d) or recorded an assignment meeting the requirements of subsection (e)."  This language suggests that the assignment document might be substituted for the oath/declaration to satisfy the requirements under circumstances other than those where the inventor is unable, unavailable, or unwilling to sign (provided the assignment document is signed).  Since assignment documents are traditionally not constrained by the limitations of oaths or declarations (i.e., that neither the application nor the oath/declaration can be altered after the oath/declaration is signed), there is at least the possibility (particularly in view of the latitude given the Director) for assignments to be accepted under circumstances where an inventor (or, more likely, a co-inventor) is unaware that an application has been filed.  Similar possibilities exist for later-filed applications (continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part), since new § 115(g) provides that a new oath/declaration need not be filed if in the earlier application an oath/declaration pursuant to new § 115(a), a substitute statement under new § 115(d), or an assignment under new § 115(e) has been filed.

New § 115(h)(1) further provides that "[a]ny person making a statement required under this section may withdraw, replace or otherwise correct the statement at any time" pursuant to regulations established by the Director "under which any such additional statements shall be filed."  In addition, "the Director may not  . . . require that any individual [] make any additional oath, declaration or other statement" once that individual has fulfilled the requirements of §§ 115(a) or (e) (i.e., the assignment shall be sufficient under this section).  This part of the statute also has an express "savings clause" permitting any irregularities in the oath or declaration to be cured by such "corrective statements."  New § 115(i) contains the provision that "any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 3 contains several "conforming amendments," to 35 U.S.C. §§ 121, 111(a), and the Table of Sections.

Section 3(b)(1) amends current 35 U.S.C. § 118 (Filing by other than inventor) as follows:

A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent.  A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.  If the Director grants a patent on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers to be sufficient.

Section 3(b)(2) amends 35 U.S.C. § 251 to permit the applicant (assignee) to file a reissue application (and presumably sign the oath/declaration attesting that the patent for reissue is defective).

In keeping with the reflection of the statute-writing process, Section 3(c) revises 35 U.S.C. § 112 to replace paragraph designations with subsections; thus, § 112, 1st paragraph, is changed to § 112(a), § 112, 2nd paragraph, is changed to § 112(b), etc.  There is no indication why this change has been included in the bill.  Section 3(d) contains conforming amendments to §§ 111(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) to reflect these amendments to § 112.

The effective date of these provisions is "1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to patent applications that are filed on or after that effective date" under Section 3(e).

Comments

[staff]

"Inventor's Interests, If Not Rights, Limited by S. 23"

Small entities agree. Yet, they have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” Congress is rushing headlong into disaster. This bill will be a wholesale slaughter of US jobs.

Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large corporations maintain their monopolies and kill their small entity and startup competitors (which is exactly what they intended it to do) and with them the jobs they would have created. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.

Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/

[Patrick]

Kevin,

Great post! I wondered a few weeks ago why no one else was talking about these changes. (See http://gametimeip.com/2011/02/23/patent-reformers-favor-corporate-interests-over-inventors-rights/)

Justice Breyer recently acknowledged that only human beings, not entities, invent things. The proposed procedure gives the PTO director substantial leeway to reduce an inventor's contribution to a mere formality, similar to Europe and other parts of the world.

[Paul F. Morgan]

First, this is already the situation for the foreign patent application filings of the inventions of U.S. inventors, and there has been no such problem or abuse.
Secondly, does anyone seriously think assignor companies or attorneys are going to risk serious personal legal and professional consequences, plus patent invalidity, by doing false U.S. filings?

[Keeping It Real]

small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.”

It may be true that small entities "create the lion's share of new jobs."

It is certainly NOT true -- not by a long shot -- that small patent-filing entities create the lion's share of new jobs.

The impact of this bill on new job creation will be, relatively speaking, absolute squat. Of course, if you look closely at the political views of the typical Internet-posting advocate for small inventors, you'll find in most cases that those views directly contradict the goal of "job creation" in this country, i.e., they tend to be Republican and completely self-interested/absorbed.

[6]

"inventions of U.S. inventors, and there has been no such problem or abuse."

Except that it violates on OUR constitution n all that. It violates right squarely upon it.