HIP, INC. v. Hormel Foods Corporation

Case Number: CLB0518

Date: 05.02.2023

The high bar for alleging a joint inventor of an issued patent includes a three-part test of whether a person (1) contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention; (2) 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 (3) did more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Stephen Thaler v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP Director of the USPTO, USPTO

Case Number: CLB0507

Date: 08.05.2022

When a statute unambiguously and directly answers the question, analysis does not stray beyond the plain text. Congress has determined that only a natural person can be an inventor, therefore, AI cannot be. Accordingly, the plain meaning of “inventor” in the Patent Act is limited to natural persons.

view Case Detail Download PDF

TriReme Medical, LLC v. AngioScore, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0359

Date: 02.05.2016

In general, work or consulting agreements will be construed based on the plain meaning of the words employed

view Case Detail Download PDF

Shukh v. Seagate Tech, LLC

Case Number: CLB0360

Date: 03.02.2015

An inventor does not automatically have standing to sue for being improperly excluded from being listed as an inventor, and thus the inventor must be able to show additional cognizable harm before the court will hear the case.

view Case Detail Download PDF

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0290

Date: 11.28.2012

Under Section 102(g), in order to invalidate a patent claim on the ground of prior inventorship, an alleged infringer must prove either that it conceived of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice or that it reduced its invention to practice before the critical date of the patent-at-issue.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0189

Date: 04.11.2008

Patentee appeals from summary judgment finding on the issue of infringement in defendant’s favor. Defendant appeals from summary judgment findings on the issues of laches, inequitable conduct, invalidity, and inventorship in patentee’s favor.

view Case Detail Download PDF