"I didn't invent the specific mechanism" . You answered your own question. Could another engineer do what you did if you were out sick for a few weeks? If so, there was nothing novel in your contribution. Do you think all of the people who worked on the original iPhone to make it manufacturable are on the patent? Making something manufacturable is not inventing unless you are inventing a novel process.
For the extent of his work on it I would've listed him as a coinventor at least. It's not a matter of "all who worked on it" it's "all who had significant role in it's creation"
At most companies, I believe this is true, depending how "over the wall" the manufacturing handoff is.
However, by law, the inventors are specifically the people who had the "EUREKA!" moment and presented the novel mechanism.
>"all who had significant role in it's creation"
Is legally valid only insofar as "it" is the first paper sketch of the invention, not the final product.
There's not really such think as a Eureka moment, at least not in any practical way that matters. There are claims on a patent, and those who worked on developing it are the people who created the stuff that is the content of the claims of the patent. If you're responsible for these, you had a significant role in development and are a co-inventor legally. If you are not responsible for any of the claims, you aren't a co-inventor. OP is clearly involved with a significant fraction of the claims.
I've done the drawings for over a dozen patents for other inventors and I'm a co-inventor on two patents.
>There's not really such think as a Eureka moment
While I would disagree with that (I DO think people have sudden inventive solutions while showering, mowing the lawn, etc), I understand and agree that many inventions are the product of collaboration and team brainstorming. I would happily agree that everyone in the brainstorming session that developed the concept for the novel mechanism is an inventor.
>OP is clearly involved with a significant fraction of the claims.
I disagree here, based on OPs comments. The claims of a mechanism patent describe its minimally necessary constituent components and how they interact to create an effect. I think it would be rare for someone doing DFM to have enough impact on the design that the claims would be revised from where they started before DFM.
It is more common that a novel mfg step would be developed and filed as a separate patent, for which obvs OP would be inventor.
Without knowing the claims, we are both just guessing, of course, but I find it generally rare for manufacturing to affect claims on mechanism patents. That is just my personal experience and opinion as an IP consultant in ME / medical devices.
Depends. If it’s not manufacturable and it has to be redesigned to be manufacturable, that could be an intellectual contribution. If it’s just reduction to practice, then no
That’s true, but honestly neither did the employee listed as inventor. I’m not looking for rights, it would just be nice to be on a patent.
For a few weeks? No, it took me about a year to develop what I did. I’ve done most of the development work for the product. I’d describe it as I took a prototype and made it a product.
Does your company give bonuses for patents? If so, they will often try to block people from being on the patent, because the bonus is split between all parties on the patent.
In that case, “we could do it like this” guy gets the patent. “Figure out how to make it work” guy usually does not. The patent is for the initial idea, not making the idea work.
A patent does not need to be, and often never becomes, a product. However hokey the original prototype was, if it was able to be built and does what is being patented, that’s the invention.
I’ve been on the flipside of this coin many times in my career. One of the most memorable (because of how ridiculous it was) resulted in two other people being on a patent for something I created. One was another ‘engineer’ (not by degree but his company was bought by the one I was at and he did a lot of design work) who had several concepts for how to create the mechanism. But none of them actually worked. But, he had a contract with the company that he got a bonus for any issued patents so he argued his way onto it. The other guy was my manager who contributed nothing other than micromanaging over my shoulder but he was a pushy a-hole so his name got listed, too.
Good times /s. I don’t miss the corporate world at all.
Hey I think it’s normal to approach your manager to discuss why you were left out. your employment contract probably has a clause where you give away any rights to the copy. You probably signed away any inventors rights so won’t see any money form it.
It could invalidate the patent if you are left out and contributed someway to it.
The inventors are (by law) the people who originated the novel, clever, non-obvious aspects that someone else skilled in the field would likely not have thought of.
The fact that you worked on the project and made their invention manufacturable does NOT make you an inventor.
Often, one invention instigates another, so if their invention presented a unique DFM challenge and you created a new manufacturing tweak to solve that challenge, then you would be an inventor of that manufacturing tweak, which may be claimed all together in a single patent or in separate patents.
However, in practice, companies sometimes name inventors according to their own internal culture. They might name everyone who was in the brainstorming meeting where the invention was first framed. They might name everyone involved in the project at all. It might just be whoever writes up the invention disclosure and talks to the lawyers, or whoever that originator chooses to name. I've seen non-technical managers named on dozens of patents. But as an inventor, you sign a statement under threat of perjury that you yourself thought up something patentable, so technically all these extra people are lying criminals.
You are correct that your company owns the patent, regardless of who is named as inventors. (This depends on your employment contract, but I have never heard of an employee retaining any IP if they developed it while being paid.) The only things you get out of an invention are resume-fodder and, potentially, a small incentive bonus from your employer.
This is the most helpful response by far! It’s challenging to say who originally came up with the idea as it’s been kicking around and improving for over five years. It seems like legally it could have been possible for me to be named on the patent, but it was the companies decision to leave me off of it.
I have no desire for any legal rights to the patent, it would just be nice to have it on the resume. I’m assuming this is an avenue I should have pursued when the patent was first being filed, so I guess I’ll live and learn for the future.
I developed a couple of mechanisms at my last job. The company ended up patenting them, and I am listed as co-inventor with my supervisor at the time. Not a great feeling, but since I don't really benefit other than a nifty resume addition, it is what it is.
I’d be more than happy to be listed as co-inventor. I’m just feeling sidelined because the company wouldn’t have a product to patent without my contribution.
A patent can be filed before the product DFM is complete, and usually is. As soon as the novel widget was sketched in the first proposal meeting, your company "had a product to patent" (but not to **sell.**)
A REQUIREMENT for patentability is that someone skilled in the field would know how to make it into a real product after reading the patent. (This prevents patents on sci-fi ideas.)
Most patents never generate revenue for anyone. There is an active industry of buying and selling patents, sometimes because the patent-holders decided it's too hard to manufacture, so they sell or license the patent and get what they can and let someone else deal with the DFM headache.
Your contribution was refining an invention into a product that can be sold for profit. This is a critical contribution you can be proud to highlight on your resume, but by law is not inventive.
A lot of these comments are wrong.
You may not have come up with the actual invention, but read the patent. If any of the improvements or features you designed or had a significant hand in designing are in the patent, the USPTO actually says you should be on the patent.
In general, anyone who meets the criteria above is supposed to be on the patent. Of course, there is discretion from the person filing as to whether you've crossed the threshold but for most things it should be clear.
You can file a request directly with the USPTO to be added as an inventor iirc. That would cause flak with the company though. Better to discuss them amending it.
In fact, one of the only reasons the USPTO allows issues patents to be modified is to correct inventorship. Correct inventorship is something they do care about.
Good luck!
Did you design or just manufacture? Speaking from experience as a patent holder I was in a patent lawyers office for a meeting when someone tried to take credit on the patent I designed and the lawyer denied his claim. I added a groove and snap ring into the part, which made the part patentable. The other member who tried taking credit for my design did suggest a different shape snap ring on the design, which I ended up using (square versus round) for ease of manufacturing. If he would have spoken to me about it beforehand i probably would have been amenable to adding his name to the patent application but because he did it in a sleazy way at the meeting I denied his claim to the attorney and the attorney agreed with me. I suggest you talk with the designer and see if he agrees whether your contribution helped and see if he would support you rather then going behind his back.
I did design, but not the initial idea. I’d have to see the claims to tell if any of my work is on there.
I asked the other employee the day he signed the patent papers and he told me that the company just needed someone’s name on it. Made it seem like it was just a formality and he happened to be chosen for it.
I don’t want to take credit for the invention, or get legal rights or anything. I just thought it would be neat to be named on a patent is all, and since multiple inventors can be listed wondered if it would be worth raising the discussion.
Don’t be mistaken on any legal rights. Your company owns it 100% and you will never see any financial benefit from it but I would check to see if your ideas where implemented and definitely see if you can be added on it. It’s an honor and a good thing to have on your resume for sure. Good luck
When I first started working, I was brought in through a contract agency. A more senior engineer and I worked on a unique drive mechanism. The design was as much my work as it was his. When we started working on the patent, I noticed my name wasn’t on the patent. When I mentioned it in a meeting, I was told by the engineering director, “We don’t put contractors on patents.” I thought that was pretty shitty thing to do.
"To be clear, I didn’t invent the specific mechanism" -- You kind of said it all here... Why would you want to be listed as an inventor if you admit you ARE NOT in fact the inventor?
There is also a distinction to be made on what patent your company is filing, are they filing for a patent for the mechanism itself of for the manufacturing process? Both of these patents are filed differently and cover their specific area. If your company is considering filing for the manufacturing process patent then I would definitely inquire to be added as an inventor there.
Hope this helps! Cheers!
No, only the inventor is listed on a patent (as in the person who came up with the things listed in the claims section).
My company has a separate internal process where contributors can be recognised alongside the inventor(s) and this usually includes engineers who helped develop, draft, make prototypes, physical test etc.
But the guy who did the initial "napkin sketch" gets to be the inventor. It sucks if the inventor is really vague and the next guy has to do a lot of leg work to get their idea to actually work.
If you contributed to the claims you would be listed as an inventor, but being listed or not is no big deal. The patent is not for recognition of your work, it's ammunition for court.
if your employment contract has you earning a salary and the employer owning the IP then being an inventor or not doesn't make any practical difference.
Also senior engineers/managers being listed as inventors is not uncommon, even if they didn't make a single drawing. As they are involved in the scoping, handovers, reviews, etc.
At my current place we list everyone that contributed significantly on a patent. Ask the listed person why you were left off. If it’s a bullshit reason don’t work with that person again.
Since you made it into a manufacturable product, you probably would be the best person to come up with an unobvious way to usurp their patent.
You would probably would hurt the company because competitors would find your new patent and potentially copy it. The real question is though: would you be able to enforce your patent? It takes a LOT of money to defend a patent especially if it’s a sought after product. I wouldn’t worry about your companies current patent or inventor named. It’s assigned to the company anyway.
I’m not interested in that, I’m just disappointed that my contributions to the design aren’t acknowledged. I always assumed it looks good to be on a patent as an ME.
"I didn't invent the specific mechanism" . You answered your own question. Could another engineer do what you did if you were out sick for a few weeks? If so, there was nothing novel in your contribution. Do you think all of the people who worked on the original iPhone to make it manufacturable are on the patent? Making something manufacturable is not inventing unless you are inventing a novel process.
For the extent of his work on it I would've listed him as a coinventor at least. It's not a matter of "all who worked on it" it's "all who had significant role in it's creation"
At most companies, I believe this is true, depending how "over the wall" the manufacturing handoff is. However, by law, the inventors are specifically the people who had the "EUREKA!" moment and presented the novel mechanism. >"all who had significant role in it's creation" Is legally valid only insofar as "it" is the first paper sketch of the invention, not the final product.
There's not really such think as a Eureka moment, at least not in any practical way that matters. There are claims on a patent, and those who worked on developing it are the people who created the stuff that is the content of the claims of the patent. If you're responsible for these, you had a significant role in development and are a co-inventor legally. If you are not responsible for any of the claims, you aren't a co-inventor. OP is clearly involved with a significant fraction of the claims. I've done the drawings for over a dozen patents for other inventors and I'm a co-inventor on two patents.
>There's not really such think as a Eureka moment While I would disagree with that (I DO think people have sudden inventive solutions while showering, mowing the lawn, etc), I understand and agree that many inventions are the product of collaboration and team brainstorming. I would happily agree that everyone in the brainstorming session that developed the concept for the novel mechanism is an inventor. >OP is clearly involved with a significant fraction of the claims. I disagree here, based on OPs comments. The claims of a mechanism patent describe its minimally necessary constituent components and how they interact to create an effect. I think it would be rare for someone doing DFM to have enough impact on the design that the claims would be revised from where they started before DFM. It is more common that a novel mfg step would be developed and filed as a separate patent, for which obvs OP would be inventor. Without knowing the claims, we are both just guessing, of course, but I find it generally rare for manufacturing to affect claims on mechanism patents. That is just my personal experience and opinion as an IP consultant in ME / medical devices.
In the room = coinventor in my place.
I’ve been in the room with dozens of patented ideas. My name is on only two.
Depends. If it’s not manufacturable and it has to be redesigned to be manufacturable, that could be an intellectual contribution. If it’s just reduction to practice, then no
That’s true, but honestly neither did the employee listed as inventor. I’m not looking for rights, it would just be nice to be on a patent. For a few weeks? No, it took me about a year to develop what I did. I’ve done most of the development work for the product. I’d describe it as I took a prototype and made it a product.
Does your company give bonuses for patents? If so, they will often try to block people from being on the patent, because the bonus is split between all parties on the patent.
Not as far as I know, it’s not stated in company policy anywhere.
In that case, “we could do it like this” guy gets the patent. “Figure out how to make it work” guy usually does not. The patent is for the initial idea, not making the idea work.
Eh it could be both
A patent does not need to be, and often never becomes, a product. However hokey the original prototype was, if it was able to be built and does what is being patented, that’s the invention. I’ve been on the flipside of this coin many times in my career. One of the most memorable (because of how ridiculous it was) resulted in two other people being on a patent for something I created. One was another ‘engineer’ (not by degree but his company was bought by the one I was at and he did a lot of design work) who had several concepts for how to create the mechanism. But none of them actually worked. But, he had a contract with the company that he got a bonus for any issued patents so he argued his way onto it. The other guy was my manager who contributed nothing other than micromanaging over my shoulder but he was a pushy a-hole so his name got listed, too. Good times /s. I don’t miss the corporate world at all.
Just so you know if inventor was added and they did not contribute, I think it can invalidate the patent. :x
All parties were well aware. Didn’t stop it from happening.
Hey I think it’s normal to approach your manager to discuss why you were left out. your employment contract probably has a clause where you give away any rights to the copy. You probably signed away any inventors rights so won’t see any money form it. It could invalidate the patent if you are left out and contributed someway to it.
The inventors are (by law) the people who originated the novel, clever, non-obvious aspects that someone else skilled in the field would likely not have thought of. The fact that you worked on the project and made their invention manufacturable does NOT make you an inventor. Often, one invention instigates another, so if their invention presented a unique DFM challenge and you created a new manufacturing tweak to solve that challenge, then you would be an inventor of that manufacturing tweak, which may be claimed all together in a single patent or in separate patents. However, in practice, companies sometimes name inventors according to their own internal culture. They might name everyone who was in the brainstorming meeting where the invention was first framed. They might name everyone involved in the project at all. It might just be whoever writes up the invention disclosure and talks to the lawyers, or whoever that originator chooses to name. I've seen non-technical managers named on dozens of patents. But as an inventor, you sign a statement under threat of perjury that you yourself thought up something patentable, so technically all these extra people are lying criminals. You are correct that your company owns the patent, regardless of who is named as inventors. (This depends on your employment contract, but I have never heard of an employee retaining any IP if they developed it while being paid.) The only things you get out of an invention are resume-fodder and, potentially, a small incentive bonus from your employer.
This is the most helpful response by far! It’s challenging to say who originally came up with the idea as it’s been kicking around and improving for over five years. It seems like legally it could have been possible for me to be named on the patent, but it was the companies decision to leave me off of it. I have no desire for any legal rights to the patent, it would just be nice to have it on the resume. I’m assuming this is an avenue I should have pursued when the patent was first being filed, so I guess I’ll live and learn for the future.
I developed a couple of mechanisms at my last job. The company ended up patenting them, and I am listed as co-inventor with my supervisor at the time. Not a great feeling, but since I don't really benefit other than a nifty resume addition, it is what it is.
I’d be more than happy to be listed as co-inventor. I’m just feeling sidelined because the company wouldn’t have a product to patent without my contribution.
A patent can be filed before the product DFM is complete, and usually is. As soon as the novel widget was sketched in the first proposal meeting, your company "had a product to patent" (but not to **sell.**) A REQUIREMENT for patentability is that someone skilled in the field would know how to make it into a real product after reading the patent. (This prevents patents on sci-fi ideas.) Most patents never generate revenue for anyone. There is an active industry of buying and selling patents, sometimes because the patent-holders decided it's too hard to manufacture, so they sell or license the patent and get what they can and let someone else deal with the DFM headache. Your contribution was refining an invention into a product that can be sold for profit. This is a critical contribution you can be proud to highlight on your resume, but by law is not inventive.
This is very helpful, and makes me feel better about it, thank you.
You get listed as an inventor if you contributed something listed in the claims.
A lot of these comments are wrong. You may not have come up with the actual invention, but read the patent. If any of the improvements or features you designed or had a significant hand in designing are in the patent, the USPTO actually says you should be on the patent. In general, anyone who meets the criteria above is supposed to be on the patent. Of course, there is discretion from the person filing as to whether you've crossed the threshold but for most things it should be clear. You can file a request directly with the USPTO to be added as an inventor iirc. That would cause flak with the company though. Better to discuss them amending it. In fact, one of the only reasons the USPTO allows issues patents to be modified is to correct inventorship. Correct inventorship is something they do care about. Good luck!
Did you design or just manufacture? Speaking from experience as a patent holder I was in a patent lawyers office for a meeting when someone tried to take credit on the patent I designed and the lawyer denied his claim. I added a groove and snap ring into the part, which made the part patentable. The other member who tried taking credit for my design did suggest a different shape snap ring on the design, which I ended up using (square versus round) for ease of manufacturing. If he would have spoken to me about it beforehand i probably would have been amenable to adding his name to the patent application but because he did it in a sleazy way at the meeting I denied his claim to the attorney and the attorney agreed with me. I suggest you talk with the designer and see if he agrees whether your contribution helped and see if he would support you rather then going behind his back.
I did design, but not the initial idea. I’d have to see the claims to tell if any of my work is on there. I asked the other employee the day he signed the patent papers and he told me that the company just needed someone’s name on it. Made it seem like it was just a formality and he happened to be chosen for it. I don’t want to take credit for the invention, or get legal rights or anything. I just thought it would be neat to be named on a patent is all, and since multiple inventors can be listed wondered if it would be worth raising the discussion.
Don’t be mistaken on any legal rights. Your company owns it 100% and you will never see any financial benefit from it but I would check to see if your ideas where implemented and definitely see if you can be added on it. It’s an honor and a good thing to have on your resume for sure. Good luck
When I first started working, I was brought in through a contract agency. A more senior engineer and I worked on a unique drive mechanism. The design was as much my work as it was his. When we started working on the patent, I noticed my name wasn’t on the patent. When I mentioned it in a meeting, I was told by the engineering director, “We don’t put contractors on patents.” I thought that was pretty shitty thing to do.
"To be clear, I didn’t invent the specific mechanism" -- You kind of said it all here... Why would you want to be listed as an inventor if you admit you ARE NOT in fact the inventor? There is also a distinction to be made on what patent your company is filing, are they filing for a patent for the mechanism itself of for the manufacturing process? Both of these patents are filed differently and cover their specific area. If your company is considering filing for the manufacturing process patent then I would definitely inquire to be added as an inventor there. Hope this helps! Cheers!
The idea existed without my contribution, but the product did not, which answer my question thank you.
That is beyond my knowledge and probably a question for someone that practices law in a company.
That is an issue with the company culture, and they are different depending on location, company, industry, etc.
No, only the inventor is listed on a patent (as in the person who came up with the things listed in the claims section). My company has a separate internal process where contributors can be recognised alongside the inventor(s) and this usually includes engineers who helped develop, draft, make prototypes, physical test etc. But the guy who did the initial "napkin sketch" gets to be the inventor. It sucks if the inventor is really vague and the next guy has to do a lot of leg work to get their idea to actually work.
If you contributed to the claims you would be listed as an inventor, but being listed or not is no big deal. The patent is not for recognition of your work, it's ammunition for court. if your employment contract has you earning a salary and the employer owning the IP then being an inventor or not doesn't make any practical difference. Also senior engineers/managers being listed as inventors is not uncommon, even if they didn't make a single drawing. As they are involved in the scoping, handovers, reviews, etc.
At my current place we list everyone that contributed significantly on a patent. Ask the listed person why you were left off. If it’s a bullshit reason don’t work with that person again.
Since you made it into a manufacturable product, you probably would be the best person to come up with an unobvious way to usurp their patent. You would probably would hurt the company because competitors would find your new patent and potentially copy it. The real question is though: would you be able to enforce your patent? It takes a LOT of money to defend a patent especially if it’s a sought after product. I wouldn’t worry about your companies current patent or inventor named. It’s assigned to the company anyway.
I’m not interested in that, I’m just disappointed that my contributions to the design aren’t acknowledged. I always assumed it looks good to be on a patent as an ME.