"The CAFC stated that 'Section 256 is a 'savings provision' only to the extent that its statutory requirements are met,' highlighting the necessity of proper inventorship."
"Fortress argued that Huang was not a 'party concerned' under § 256(b) since adding him would only benefit him, but the court disagreed."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court's ruling that invalidated two patents owned by Fortress Iron LP for failing to include a necessary coinventor. The patents, related to a vertical cable rail barrier, were challenged after it was revealed that two employees from a liaison company contributed to the invention. Fortress attempted to add one of these employees as a coinventor but could not locate him. The court ruled that the omission rendered the patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 256.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]