HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HIP Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. No. 2022-1696, _ F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023)
Thursday, July 27, 2023

This case addresses the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie case to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.

Background

Hormel Foods appealed the District Court’s ruling that David Howard should be added as a joint inventor on its patents.

Standard of Review

“Inventorship is a question of law that [the Federal Circuit] review[s] without deference.” The Federal Circuit “review[s] facts underlying inventorship for clear error.”

Claimant’s Burden of Proof and Requirements to Establish a Prima Facie Case

Under the Pannu factors, to qualify as a joint inventor, “an alleged joint inventor must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that an alleged joint inventor (i) “contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention[,]” (ii) “made a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention[,]” and (iii) “did more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.”

Issue

Whether Mr. Howard is a joint inventor based on the significance of his alleged contribution.

Holding

Mr. Howard is not a joint inventor because he has not made any significant contribution to the invention.

Reasoning

Mr. Howard is not a joint inventor because his alleged contribution was not significant when measured against the scope of the full invention. “[T]he specification, claims, and figures [of the patent-at-issue] illustrate that Howard’s alleged contribution . . . is insignificant in quality when measured against the dimension of the full invention.” For example:

  1. Mr. Howard’s contribution is “mentioned only once in the” specification of the patent-at-issue “as an alternative”;
  • Mr. Howard’s contribution is “recited only once in a single claim” of the patent-at-issue. Further, such contribution is recited in a Markush group;
  • The “[s]ummary of the invention” of the patent-at-issue does not mention Mr. Howard’s contribution; and
  • No figure or recited example described Mr. Howard’s contribution.
HTML Embed Code
HB Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
 
NLR Logo
We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins