s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 1 几年前在中部一个实验室做了一年 博士后，以第一作者发了一篇论文在PNAS。现在发
现原来的老板根据那篇 论文已经申请了一个专利。但发明者中没有我的名字。发明者
中提到了3个人，两个是老板，一个是那个实验室里的副教授。那是我到美国第一年的
工作，那篇论文的结果费了我很多努力和心血，文章我也参与了撰写。发现没我名字很
是失望。不知道这样是否合理，我是否还有机会争取，请高人指点指点，有一个专利不
仅对我的CV很有好处，而且这也存在一个公平问题，老板这样做公平么？ |
z*h
发帖数: 773 | 2 Fair. Patent depends on idea but not data (most times). |
z*h
发帖数: 773 | 3 But most times giving student credit is not a big deal. |
h****u
发帖数: 480 | 4
In most cases, main contributors (postdoc and graduate student) are
included on patent. That being said, the university has the full
ownership of the IP and to my knowledge, the boss does NOT have to include
postdoc/students. You said that you did 1 year postdoc in the lab? what
happened? did you burn the bridge? If it is, there is your explanation.
【在 s*****l 的大作中提到】
: 几年前在中部一个实验室做了一年 博士后，以第一作者发了一篇论文在PNAS。现在发
: 现原来的老板根据那篇 论文已经申请了一个专利。但发明者中没有我的名字。发明者
: 中提到了3个人，两个是老板，一个是那个实验室里的副教授。那是我到美国第一年的
: 工作，那篇论文的结果费了我很多努力和心血，文章我也参与了撰写。发现没我名字很
: 是失望。不知道这样是否合理，我是否还有机会争取，请高人指点指点，有一个专利不
: 仅对我的CV很有好处，而且这也存在一个公平问题，老板这样做公平么？
|
s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 5 I don't burn the bridge.That project was supported by a small seeded grant.
The boss ran out of funding next year.So I have to change lab. I get along
with them good,if can not say best.They still wrote reference letters for me
when I applied for fellowship long after I left.I just don't understand
why my name was not included.是不是老板的心眼总是没有那么好，怕人抢他的东西，我现在有机会争取吗，专利两年前就批下来了，现在是不是太晚了。 |
g****1
发帖数: 261 | 6
grant.
along
for me
西，我现
在有机会争取吗，专利两年前就批下来了，现在是不是太晚了。
你老板在这点上好像做的不是太好。现在可能太晚了。You can try to contact
school IP
office and ask whether postdoc should be included as co-inventor in your
case. I doubt that they will give you a straight answer though.
【在 s*****l 的大作中提到】
: I don't burn the bridge.That project was supported by a small seeded grant.
: The boss ran out of funding next year.So I have to change lab. I get along
: with them good,if can not say best.They still wrote reference letters for me
: when I applied for fellowship long after I left.I just don't understand
: why my name was not included.是不是老板的心眼总是没有那么好，怕人抢他的东西，我现在有机会争取吗，专利两年前就批下来了，现在是不是太晚了。
|
s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 7 谢谢你的建议。我打算给知识产权办公室写信问问。我觉得最好能找律师咨询， 但又
不知该找什么律师。 |
a**v
发帖数: 406 | 8 You can challenge. They should either add your name or their patent will be
valid.
"Fair. Patent depends on idea but not data (most times)" is bullshit . |
l**d
发帖数: 472 | 9 MPEP 2137.01
IV. THE INVENTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE INVENTION TO PRACTICE
Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member
of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually
contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical
structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the
direction and supervision of the conceivers. Fritsch v. Lin, 21 USPQ2d 1737
, 1739 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (The inventor“took no part in
developing the procedures…for expressing the EPO gene in mammalian host
cells and isolating the resulting EPO product.” However, “it is not
essential for the inventor to be personally involved in carrying out process
steps…where implementation
of those steps does not require the exercise of inventive skill.”); In re
DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982) (“there is no
requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice
so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf”). See also
Mattor v. Coolegem, 530 F.2d 1391, 1395, 189 USPQ 201, 204 (CCPA 1976) (one
following oral instructions is viewed as merely a technician); Tuckerv.Naito
, 188 USPQ 260, 263 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1975) (inventors need not “personally
construct and test their invention”); Davis v. Carrier, 81 F.2d 250, 252,
28 USPQ 227, 229 (CCPA 1936) (noninventor’s work was merely that of a
skilled mechanic carrying out the details of a plan devised by another). |
g****1
发帖数: 261 | 10
There are many IP lawyers, but the lawyer will only take the case if
1) You have loads of money;
or
2) The patent has generated loads of money;
good luck!
【在 s*****l 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢你的建议。我打算给知识产权办公室写信问问。我觉得最好能找律师咨询， 但又
: 不知该找什么律师。
|
|
|
s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 11 我在网上找到一篇文章，是一个著名的案子，登在science上。还有案子提到的文章。
看到这篇文章我觉我的情况没戏了。做博士后太苦了，辛辛苦苦的研究自己连知识产权
都没份，怎么才能保护自己的权利呢。
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/287/5462/2399
Chou J, Kern ER, Whitley RJ, Roizman B.
Mapping of herpes simplex virus-1 neurovirulence to gamma 134.5, a gene
nonessential for growth in culture.
Science. 1990 Nov 30;250(4985):1262-6.
Chou J, Roizman B.
The herpes simplex virus 1 gene for ICP34.5, which maps in inverted repeats,
is conserved in several limited-passage isolates but not in strain 17syn+.
J Virol. 1990 Mar;64(3):1014-20. |
H****N
发帖数: 997 | 12 The ruling mentioned in Science was later reversed by the Federal Circuit
Court
see http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0035.html |
s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 13 谢谢的HENBEN信息，让人很振奋。
我给那个大学IP办公室写了信，这是他们的部分回信内容:
Inventorship is different from authorship on a paper in that one must have
contributed to the conception of the invention, and that contribution must
be covered in at least one claim in the resulting patent in order to be
listed as an inventor on the patent。
做课题的时候标书是写好的，我是依照标书做课题，并没有参与课题撰写。实验的最终
结果没有超出课题的预期目标，虽然克服了很多困难。从这点上，我作为发明者的理由
似乎不充足。 |
s*****c
发帖数: 753 | 14 I don't know if you are aware of this, but if a paper is published already,
you can't apply patent for the ideas in that paper.
So they might start filing for the patent before you even join their lab.
You paper just provide data to support the patent.
【在 s*****l 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢的HENBEN信息，让人很振奋。
: 我给那个大学IP办公室写了信，这是他们的部分回信内容:
: Inventorship is different from authorship on a paper in that one must have
: contributed to the conception of the invention, and that contribution must
: be covered in at least one claim in the resulting patent in order to be
: listed as an inventor on the patent。
: 做课题的时候标书是写好的，我是依照标书做课题，并没有参与课题撰写。实验的最终
: 结果没有超出课题的预期目标，虽然克服了很多困难。从这点上，我作为发明者的理由
: 似乎不充足。
|
s*****l
发帖数: 116 | 15 springc说的不错，专利申请应该是在文章发表之前交上去的，但文章发的快，专利批
地慢。所以文章倒是在专利批准之前发表的。我的情况是文章内容和专利内容其实基本
一样。 |
g****1
发帖数: 261 | 16
already,
lab.
This is NOT true. You can file U.S. patent within 12 months AFTER the
paper was published. It's different from international patent.
【在 s*****c 的大作中提到】
: I don't know if you are aware of this, but if a paper is published already,
: you can't apply patent for the ideas in that paper.
: So they might start filing for the patent before you even join their lab.
: You paper just provide data to support the patent.
|
