| "Intellectual Property (IP) 101" | | | | an invention for up to one year. Within one year |
| IP includes patents, trademarks, and copyrights. A | | | | of the filing date of the provisional application, it |
| patent provides an exclusive right to an invention. | | | | must be followed by filing a more formal US |
| A trademark provides an exclusive right to an | | | | application and any foreign applications in foreign |
| indication of source of a product. A copyright | | | | countries in which protection is sought. If the |
| provides an exclusive right to an original work. A | | | | formal applications are not filed, the benefit of the |
| service mark provides an exclusive right to a | | | | early filing date of the provisional application is lost. |
| service or origin of a service. | | | | Who Owns Your Invention? |
| United States copyrights accrue automatically, but | | | | Who owns your invention? Who owns your |
| a work must be registered with the United States | | | | employee’s invention? Invention ownership |
| Copyright Office to perfect the federal copyright. | | | | disputes occur all too frequently. However, |
| Trademark rights can also accrue without a | | | | invention ownership disputes are easily avoidable |
| federal registration, but those rights are weaker, | | | | with the proper foresight and knowledge. |
| and a federal registration is preferred in almost all | | | | Our legal system presumes that the inventor is |
| situations. | | | | the owner of the exclusive rights in his or her |
| United States patents and trademarks are | | | | invention. How then, does someone other than |
| obtained by filing an application in the United | | | | the inventor obtain the rights to the |
| States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). An | | | | inventor’s invention? The answer to that |
| examiner in the USPTO examines the application | | | | question is by an assignment. The assignment can |
| for compliance with all statutory requirements. | | | | be an express assignment, which is typically a |
| The USPTO issues complying applications and | | | | written document evidencing a contract between |
| rejects non-complying applications. Often, a | | | | the inventor and the assignee in which the |
| non-complying application can be amended, | | | | inventor sells the rights to the invention to the |
| thereby placing it in condition for allowance. It is | | | | assignee. However, that type of assignment is not |
| helpful to discuss possible amendments with the | | | | what leads to ownership disputes. Ownership |
| examiner in charge of the application prior to filing | | | | disputes occur when there is no express |
| an amendment. Discussions with the examiner on | | | | assignment and both the inventor and his or her |
| how best to amend an application increase the | | | | employer think that they own the invention. This |
| chance that the amendment will result in | | | | is because the presumption that the inventor |
| allowance. | | | | owns the invention is incorrect in certain situations, |
| Trademarks and service marks identify your | | | | even without an express assignment. |
| business to the purchaser of your product or | | | | An employer of one who is "hired to invent" owns |
| service. Your mark allows a consumer to come | | | | the rights to the inventor’s inventions. The |
| back to you if he or she likes what you provide. | | | | Supreme Court came to that conclusion in the |
| If you have a trademark right, using your | | | | Standard Parts Co. v. Peck case in 1924. |
| trademark prevents someone else from using a | | | | However, that is the extreme case, since the |
| similar mark that is likely to confuse the public into | | | | vast majority of employees are not employed to |
| buying goods from them instead of you. | | | | invent. What about an employee employed to |
| Patents provide a limited monopoly on your | | | | design or construct, such as an engineer? An |
| company’s product or process. Monopoly | | | | employee employed in a field of endeavor in |
| translates into high profit margins due to exclusion | | | | order to design or construct is not equivalent to |
| of competition. Patents can be obtained on any | | | | an employee employed for the purpose of |
| invention that complies with the statutory | | | | invention. That was the conclusion reached by the |
| requirements, which are that the invention is | | | | Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. |
| useful, novel, and non-obvious. The prevailing case | | | | in 1933. However, that conclusion leaves open the |
| law allows patents on just about anything, for | | | | question of who owns the invention made by the |
| example, it allows patents on computer | | | | engineer. The outcome in each ownership case |
| implemented methods of calculating useful results, | | | | depends on the relationship between the |
| and on computer implemented methods of doing | | | | employee, the employer, and the circumstances |
| business. | | | | of the invention. |
| Obtaining United States patents and trademark | | | | Even if it turns out that the employee owns his |
| rights is expensive, primarily due to the amount | | | | or her invention, if the employee used the |
| of high hourly rate attorney time required to | | | | employer’s materials or equipment during |
| prepare an application and guide it through the | | | | working hours to make the invention, the law |
| USPTO. For patents, part of that cost can be | | | | grants the employer a nonexclusive license to the |
| deferred by initially filing a relatively simple | | | | invention. That has been the law ever since the |
| provisional patent application. The filing date of a | | | | Supreme Court Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke case |
| provisional application is prima facie (evidence | | | | in 1893. |
| legally sufficient to establish a fact unless | | | | It should be apparent that the best way to avoid |
| subsequently disproved by additional evidence) | | | | an ownership dispute is to reduce to a written |
| proof of the date of invention. A provisional | | | | contract between the employee and the |
| patent application protects for one year the right | | | | employer who owns the rights to any inventions |
| to pursue patent protection on the novel aspects | | | | made by the employee, and that agreement |
| of a product or process at a very low cost. | | | | should be defined as early as possible in the |
| However, provisional applications do not issue into | | | | employee employer relationship. |
| patents. They simply preserve the filing date for | | | | |