Exercises Patents and Innova1on
20/10/2025
Applicant/inventor?
For a given patent applica4on
• Who is/are the applicant(s)?
– files for the patent applica4on(s) à becomes the patentee when the patent is granted
• Who is/are the inventor(s)
– Has invented the product/makes the inven4on
• Who is/are the owner(s)?
– Has the rights over the patent applica4on of patent
– Not an official term, but in prac4ce it is relevant
• Owner can be the same person as applicant, but this does not have to be
• Inventor can also be the same person as the applicant, but again, this does not have to be
• EPC: the right shall belong to the inventor or his successor in 4tle (Art. 60(1))
• EPC
– Applicant shall be deemed to be en4tled to exercise the right to the European patent
(Art. 60(3))
o EPO will not check if someone else is (mis)using your patent, making your
product without having the patent à you have to check this, and you have to
go to na4onal court
– Applicant may be any natural or legal person
• If the inventor is an employee, na4onal law determines the right to the European patent (Art.
60(1) EPC)
• Disputes about en4tlement (who is the righTul applicant) should be brought before a na4onal
court
• EPO can interrupt proceedings upon request and in case of decision of new owner allows
– New owner to prosecute applica4on
– New owner to file new applica4on
During an exercise
• Determine who is/are the inventor(s)
• The situa4on of the inventor(s) then determines who can be the applicant
– Are they employees, students?
– Who is en4tled to the inven4on?
• The ownership can change aWer filing
– Sale of the applica4on/patent à someone can sell the patent applica4on or the patent
– The inventor stays the same over 4me
Determining inventors
• Important as this will determine who owns the right to the inven4on
• Should be the subject of a detailed analysis: who contributed to the inven4on
• Europe: inventorship not checked so not taken seriously
• US: inventorship determina4on taken seriously and redone when claims are changed –
wrongful inventorship is a ground for invalidity!
– US take inventorship very seriously à if you forgot the inventor, can become difficult
when someone goes to the court
, Are not inventors
• Who worked with skill and diligence under direc4on to reduce the inven4on to prac4ce
• Who provided a research tool necessary to reduce the inven4on to prac4ce
• Who heads the lab without contribu4on to making the inven4on or iden4fying ways of carrying
it out
• People in the lab who should be rewarded for hard work
• Personal friends, collegues...
Exercise
Informa6on in patent databases
Scien4fic informa4on
• A lot of informa4on that is never published in scien4fic literature
– In es4ma4on yearly 20 billion $ lost in Europe by duplica4on of research
– Many examples of university groups repea4ng patented research without knowing it
• Patents are especially rich source of DNA and protein sequences
• Main part of interest:
– technical disclosure, examples (main source are the examples à you want to know
what they did)
Commercial informa4on
• What are compe4tors doing
• Who can I consider for collabora4on, who would be interested in licensing my technology
• Main part of interest
– Applicants/patentees
– General descrip4on/examples (main info in the descrip4on)
Legal informa4on
• Are there patents blocking my commercial ac4vi4es
• Main part of interest
– The scope of the claims (important à determines what you can or cannot do)
– status of the patent/patent applica4on
20/10/2025
Applicant/inventor?
For a given patent applica4on
• Who is/are the applicant(s)?
– files for the patent applica4on(s) à becomes the patentee when the patent is granted
• Who is/are the inventor(s)
– Has invented the product/makes the inven4on
• Who is/are the owner(s)?
– Has the rights over the patent applica4on of patent
– Not an official term, but in prac4ce it is relevant
• Owner can be the same person as applicant, but this does not have to be
• Inventor can also be the same person as the applicant, but again, this does not have to be
• EPC: the right shall belong to the inventor or his successor in 4tle (Art. 60(1))
• EPC
– Applicant shall be deemed to be en4tled to exercise the right to the European patent
(Art. 60(3))
o EPO will not check if someone else is (mis)using your patent, making your
product without having the patent à you have to check this, and you have to
go to na4onal court
– Applicant may be any natural or legal person
• If the inventor is an employee, na4onal law determines the right to the European patent (Art.
60(1) EPC)
• Disputes about en4tlement (who is the righTul applicant) should be brought before a na4onal
court
• EPO can interrupt proceedings upon request and in case of decision of new owner allows
– New owner to prosecute applica4on
– New owner to file new applica4on
During an exercise
• Determine who is/are the inventor(s)
• The situa4on of the inventor(s) then determines who can be the applicant
– Are they employees, students?
– Who is en4tled to the inven4on?
• The ownership can change aWer filing
– Sale of the applica4on/patent à someone can sell the patent applica4on or the patent
– The inventor stays the same over 4me
Determining inventors
• Important as this will determine who owns the right to the inven4on
• Should be the subject of a detailed analysis: who contributed to the inven4on
• Europe: inventorship not checked so not taken seriously
• US: inventorship determina4on taken seriously and redone when claims are changed –
wrongful inventorship is a ground for invalidity!
– US take inventorship very seriously à if you forgot the inventor, can become difficult
when someone goes to the court
, Are not inventors
• Who worked with skill and diligence under direc4on to reduce the inven4on to prac4ce
• Who provided a research tool necessary to reduce the inven4on to prac4ce
• Who heads the lab without contribu4on to making the inven4on or iden4fying ways of carrying
it out
• People in the lab who should be rewarded for hard work
• Personal friends, collegues...
Exercise
Informa6on in patent databases
Scien4fic informa4on
• A lot of informa4on that is never published in scien4fic literature
– In es4ma4on yearly 20 billion $ lost in Europe by duplica4on of research
– Many examples of university groups repea4ng patented research without knowing it
• Patents are especially rich source of DNA and protein sequences
• Main part of interest:
– technical disclosure, examples (main source are the examples à you want to know
what they did)
Commercial informa4on
• What are compe4tors doing
• Who can I consider for collabora4on, who would be interested in licensing my technology
• Main part of interest
– Applicants/patentees
– General descrip4on/examples (main info in the descrip4on)
Legal informa4on
• Are there patents blocking my commercial ac4vi4es
• Main part of interest
– The scope of the claims (important à determines what you can or cannot do)
– status of the patent/patent applica4on
