Member Info for Targa123

Just have, learn to read

Https://www.gdblaw.com/resources/incorrect-inventorship-patents-tough-claim-prove

Premium Waters alleged that the patents were invalid because an additional inventor, Alessandro Falzoni, was not named. Falzoni was an employee of SACMI Imola, a company that was collaborating with Plastipak in the design of bottles. At some point, the collaboration between Plastipak and SACMI ended, and Plastipak filed the patents naming only Darr and Morgan as inventors.

The district court agreed with Premium Waters and concluded that Falzoni was a joint inventor because he contributed the X dimension limitation and the discontinuous TEF limitation.[2] The court found on summary judgment that the patents were invalid due to nonjoinder of inventors.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed and found there were genuine disputes of material fact, so that a reasonable fact-finder, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plastipak as the nonmoving party, could reject Premium Waters' position that Falzoni is a nonjoined inventor.

Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court finding and remanded. Based on an historical analysis of attempts to invalidate patents for improper naming of inventors, this result is not surprising.

Despite the admonishments that patents have been found invalid for misnaming inventors,[3] a final holding invalidating a patent for incorrect inventorship has been very unusual.

U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman collected a number of cases in the Federal Circuit where inventorship was an issue in her dissent in Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. in 1998,[4] but holdings of actual patent invalidity do not match the commonly repeated language of judges — district courts and the Federal Circuit and predecessor courts — that patents can

be invalidated for misjoinder or nonjoinder of inventors.

There appear to be no instances, at least since at least 1915, where a final decision actually invalidated a patent for misnaming inventors.[5]

Wrong again.

Wrong its not the end of. Some people dont have a clue.

You're missing the point that all appeals on patent cases are won by the plaintiff. the only thing that can go against us is that we dont own the patents. at the moment the shareholders dont know why we lost on that basis.

More interested in what went wrong in the court case and if we own any patents at all and if we're going to get our @ollocks cut off by Tesla next year when they sue us.

According to CPX they already were, thats why we went to court. Dude. Read up a little.

can't have been many people on here this morning who were taking notice over the weekend. the company still has to let us know why the patents were invalid and if they screwed up the registration of the inventors listed. there is a hope to apply to patent court to have it updated if it's simple and then we can appeal the ruiling. if we've missed someone off the list worst case is we don't have that covered and could mean sharing the patent with someone or tesla waltzing in and getting a separate agreement with that person(s) so we end up with nothing. someone has some serious **** to sort out.

Cautionary tale!

In 1989, Ethicon, a manufacturer of surgical instruments, filed a patent infringement suit against a competitor, United States Surgical, over U.S. Patent No. 4,535,773. The inventor named on the patent was Dr. Inbae Yoon. Yoon granted Ethicon an exclusive license to practice his invention. The patent had 55 claims but only two claims were asserted against U.S. Surgical: claims 34 and 50.

During the lawsuit, U.S. Surgical learned of a co-inventor named Young Jae Choi. Choi was an electronics technician who collaborated with Dr. Yoon for 18 months. US Surgical asked the court to add Choi as an inventor. The court agreed finding that Choi had co-invented claims 33 and 47. Two claims that were not even involved in the lawsuit.

The court found that there was corroborating evidence that supported Choi’s assertions that he was an inventor. The evidence was dated notes and drawings that Choi had along with his technical abilities as an electronics technician.

The court dismissed Ethicon’s lawsuit because Choi had granted U.S. Surgical a retroactive license to the patent. OUCH!

Not as sad as you are.

Message is stay positive!

Ok, this is positive info on naming - just repeating what was already posted

https://www.gdblaw.com/resources/incorrect-inventorship-patents-tough-claim-prove

Premium Waters alleged that the patents were invalid because an additional inventor, Alessandro Falzoni, was not named. Falzoni was an employee of SACMI Imola, a company that was collaborating with Plastipak in the design of bottles. At some point, the collaboration between Plastipak and SACMI ended, and Plastipak filed the patents naming only Darr and Morgan as inventors.

The district court agreed with Premium Waters and concluded that Falzoni was a joint inventor because he contributed the X dimension limitation and the discontinuous TEF limitation.[2] The court found on summary judgment that the patents were invalid due to nonjoinder of inventors.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed and found there were genuine disputes of material fact, so that a reasonable fact-finder, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plastipak as the nonmoving party, could reject Premium Waters' position that Falzoni is a nonjoined inventor.

Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court finding and remanded. Based on an historical analysis of attempts to invalidate patents for improper naming of inventors, this result is not surprising.

Despite the admonishments that patents have been found invalid for misnaming inventors,[3] a final holding invalidating a patent for incorrect inventorship has been very unusual.

U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman collected a number of cases in the Federal Circuit where inventorship was an issue in her dissent in Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. in 1998,[4] but holdings of actual patent invalidity do not match the commonly repeated language of judges — district courts and the Federal Circuit and predecessor courts — that patents can

be invalidated for misjoinder or nonjoinder of inventors.

There appear to be no instances, at least since at least 1915, where a final decision actually invalidated a patent for misnaming inventors.[5]

Https://www.mwe.com/insights/2023-ip-outlook-improper-inventorship-in-us-patent-litigations/

Thats an outstanding spot - if it were just that then patents are not invalidated.

Like you say it names the inventors but what was said in court to disprove it - no reason a RNS can't be issued over the weekend because this is a flipping disaster at the moment.

You can only appeal on a point of Law - that's the same in USA and UK - so what point of Law can it be appealed on if any because if they screwed up by not making clear who invented the patents then it won't be any appeal on a point of Law?

Balls that claims got to be worth 3m cars x $100 at least.

At this price its a bargain

I'm amazed nobody talked up how much the court claim could be - 3 million cars sold by Tesla?

How much are we suing for?