Selling or Transferring Ownership a Patent Application or Patent

Selling or transferring ownership of a U.S. patent or patent application must be carried out by a written document called an assignment. See 35 USC 261. Below I review four common provisions of a patent/patent application assignment and then I explain the benefits of having an assignment notarized and recorded at the USPTO.

1. Transfer of Ownership

The ownership transfer clause effects the transfer of the invention and the patent application. One example ownership transfer clause is: “In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledge, the entire right, title, and interest in the invention by [Inventor(s) Name] (“Assignor”) of the [Title of Invention] (“Invention”) and in the application for Letters Patent of the United States therefor, identified by serial number ________ and filing date ________ (“Application”), and in any reissue of any Letters Patent that may be granted upon the Application are hereby assigned by Assignor to [Recipient/Assignee] [an individual / a Corporation/LLC organized under the laws of [State]] having an address at _____________ (“Assignee”).” Notice that this clause transfers ownership of the invention and the patent application for that invention.

2. Geographic Scope

A provision defining the geographic scope of the assignment is desirable. Often an assignment is intended to apply worldwide to allow the receiving party (i.e. the Assignee) to file patent application on the invention in any foreign country. Therefore, an assignment might provide, “The assigned rights include all worldwide rights to file any international patent applications, foreign patent applications, foreign design patent applications, utility model application, or similar industrial property rights for the Invention…”

3. Continuations and Divisionals

Patent applications occasionally include and claim more than one invention. The Patent Office may issue a restriction requirement, where the applicant must elect among the multiple inventions in the application. The unelected inventions can be pursued in a separately filed divisional application. The divisional application can be thought of a “child” application of the original “parent” application.

A continuation patent application and a continuation-in-part patent application are other types of “child” patent applications that the patent owner might want to file and therefore will want to right to file. It is desirable for the assignment to expressly authorize the Assignee (receiver) to file divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part patent applications based on the original application.

4. Obligation to Assist and Execute

In the U.S. an inventor signed declaration is usually filed with a patent application. There are provisions for accounting for situations were an inventor declaration cannot be obtained. However, generally, you want to have in inventor declaration filed in or with your patent application. Therefore, it is desirable to including in an assignment a written obligation for the inventor to execute all documents that the Assignee (recipient) desires in connection with the the patent application and any continuation, divisional, or other patent application concerning the invention.

Further, if the resulting patent is involved in a lawsuit, the patent owner will want the inventor to assist the patent owner in asserting or defending the patent. Therefore, the assignment should include a clause requiring the inventor to execute documents requested by the patent owner in connection with any lawsuit, reexamination, reissue, inter partes reexam, or other proceeding related to the patent. It would further be desirable for the assignment to require the inventor to assist and cooperate, beyond executing documents, with the patent owner in any such lawsuit or proceeding. For example, the patent owner may need the Inventor to testify about the invention.

Notary

The signatures of an assignment of a patent or patent application should notarized. 35 USC 261 provides a presumption that when signatures are notarized the assignment “shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of the an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.” In other words, it will be harder for someone to challenge the validity of the signatures. Therefore the assignment will be stronger.

Recording at USPTO

An assignment should be recorded at the USPTO to gain the benefit of 35 USC 261, which provides, “An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.” This statute protect you when you record the assignment against problems if the inventor or prior patent owner sells the same invention to another party later.

 

I Searched and There is Nothing Like My Invention at the Patent Office

Occasionally, I will hear someone say that he/she searched for their invention at the patent office, but there is nothing like it. But, more searching is likely needed. It is almost never the case that there is nothing similar to a new invention. New inventions are built on the backs of prior products, inventions, and/or knowledge.

Usually the problem is either that the person (a) has not searched in the right place or (b) is too narrowly viewing what is similar. When someone hires a patent search to be performed, the search almost always finds something related to the invention.

If a search is coming up with no results, then the patent search must be broadened. The search can be broadened by looking in different classifications or by searching for different keywords. Broadening the search can include searching other technical areas. In evaluating the patentability of an invention the patent office sometimes looks to references that are not in the same technical area as the invention but that are directed to the same type of problem that the current inventor faced in developing his/her invention. Therefore you might ask what other technical areas might address the problem or problem(s) you sought to overcome by your invention.

While relevant or similar results exist for almost every invention, those results do not necessarily block an invention from patenting. Interpreting the results is what patent attorneys do to advise their clients on the chances of obtaining a patent.

Forgot to Pay the Patent Maintenance Fee: Options to Revive a Patent

After a US utility patent is granted, maintenance fees must be paid at certain intervals. This post will discuss some of the rule that currently apply to maintenance fees.

Patent maintenance fees must be paid at 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after the patent issues. The fees can be paid in the 6 month window before the deadline, that is between 3 years and 3 1/2 years, between 7 years and 7 1/2 years, and between 11 years and 11 1/2 years, respectively. See MPEP 2506.

If you don’t pay the maintenance fee by the deadline, you can pay it in the 6 month period (“the surcharge period”) after the deadline by paying an additional surcharge fee. Therefore, the surcharge periods are between 3 1/2 years and 4 years, between 7 1/2 years and 8 years, and between 11 1/2 years and 12 years, respectively.

If you fail to pay the maintenance fee by the end of the surcharge period, the patent will be expired. To revive the patent you must file a petition. The petition is currently called “Petitions to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of a Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent.” An important requirement for revival is that the delay in payment was unintentional.

The relatively straight forward case of an unintentional delay is when you forgot to pay the fee. One definition of forget includes “to omit or neglect unintentionally.” 

The USPTO form for this type of petition include the required unintentional statement: “The delay in payment of the maintenance fee for this patent was unintentional.” Currently, the USPTO usually accepts that statement without requiring more information about why the delay was unintentional. The is because the patent owner has a duty to make truthful statements. Untruthful statements might result in the patent being unenforceable.

If the entire delay in making payment is unintentional, a petition to revive the patent can be filed together with the maintenance fee and the petition fee.

What is a Divisional Patent Application?

A U.S. divisional patent application application can be thought of as a “child” application of an earlier filed “parent” application. The filing of a divisional application often occurs when the parent application contains more than one invention.

If the parent application claims more than one invention, the USPTO may issue a restriction requirement. The restriction requirement requires the applicant to elect among the designated inventions in the application. The election of one of the designated inventions may mean the others will not be considered. Therefore the applicant has the option to file one or more divisional patent applications directed at those other un-elected inventions. The patent office wants to make sure that patent applicants are not trying to claim multiple inventions in one application because they generate fees, at least partially, on a per application basis. Divisional applications can also be filed without a restriction requirement being imposed by the USPTO.

The divisional application, if properly filed, will be recognized as having the filing date of the parent application. Therefore, a divisional application is not disadvantaged by its later filing.

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure provides that a divisional application is “a later application [e.g., a child application] for an independent or distinct invention, carved out of a [1] nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), [2] an international application designating the United States, or [3] an international design application designating the United States [e.g. the parent application] and disclosing and claiming only subject matter disclosed in the earlier or parent application [e.g. no new disclosures]. MPEP 201.06.

Therefore, no new subject matter can be added in a divisional application. Rather, the divisional application merely claims an invention that was already described in the original parent application.

The US Patent Application Process Flow Chart

us_patentapplicationprocessflowchart

 

Seeking a patent is not a file it and forget it endeavor. Instead, it involves a process where work is likely required in multiple phases. The process of obtaining a utility patent in the US generally involves novelty searching, application drafting, waiting for the patent office to review the application, and negotiating with the patent office about the scope of patent protection. Each of those phases is shown in the U.S. Patent Application Process flow chart above, which I will describe in more detail below.

Patent Novelty Search

The first question is whether or not to have a patent novelty search performed. A patent novelty search is designed to tell you the likelihood of obtaining a patent on your invention. You are not required to have a search performed in order to file a patent application, but it is often recommended. Without a search, you my spend a lot of money filing an application only to find out from the patent office that your patent application is refused because your invention has already been disclosed in the prior art (so it is not new). Read more about patent novelty searching here.

If, at step 10, you decide to have a patent search performed, a search is performed by a patent attorney or patent searcher. To get the most benefit out of a patent search, it is best to receive an opinion from a patent attorney about the likelihood of obtaining a patent in view of the patent search results. After reviewing the search report and discussing it with your patent attorney, at step 12, you decide whether it is worth pursuing a patent application in light of the patent search results.

Sometimes the patent search results reveal a prior art reference that is identical to the invention and it is clear that a patent is not likely to be obtained on the invention. If so, the answer at step 12 is relatively easy, because there’s no option to pursue a patent application. In other cases, an identical result is not found in the patent search results, but one or more results are relatively close to the your invention. When one or more results are relatively close to your invention, the scope of a patent you might expect to obtain could be narrow. If the scope of protection you might obtain is narrow, then you must make a business decision whether pursuing such patent protection is likely to be valuable in light of the patent application expense you will occur in doing so.

If you decide not to pursue a patent, then at step 14, you can either (1) go to market without filing a patent application and compete in the marketplace or (2) decide it’s not worth pursuing this invention further in light of the prior art and focus your efforts on other inventions. This is a business decision. If you decide to proceed to market without a patent application, you might like to consider non-patent options for protecting your invention.

In other cases, the search results are favorable with no very close results.

Patent Application Drafting

If at step 12, the patent novelty search results are favorable, or if you otherwise decide proceed with filing an application, then you move to step 16 where the patent application is drafted. The patent attorney will take the information you’ve given him or her and draft the patent application. This drafting includes preparing or having prepared drawings as well as drafting the written description of the invention, among other parts of the application. The attorney may request additional information from you during the process of drafting the application.

When a first draft of the patent application is ready for review, at step 18, the draft application is sent to you for review. You then read the application carefully. If you don’t have any changes and the application is accurate, complete, and ready to file, then at step 22, the patent attorney files the patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

If at step 20, you would like to provide comments, changes, or additions to the draft patent application, you provide those in writing or orally to the patent attorney. Then the patent attorney goes back to step 16 to draft and revise the patent application according to your feedback. Next, the newly revised patent application is sent to you for further review at step 18. Again you review the patent application and either approve it for filing or provide further comments, additions, changes, or other feedback. If the application is approved for filing, then the application is filed at step 23.  Otherwise the feedback is taken by the patent attorney and incorporated into a further revised patent application. The review and revision process continues until you are happy with the patent application and approve it for filing.

First Provisional Patent Application or Non-Provisional Patent Application

If the patent application filed is a provisional patent application at step 21, then within one year a non-provisional patent application claiming the benefit of that provisional must be filed. If any content of the provisional needs be revised or added to, that can be done at step 22. However, any new subject matter added to the application will not get the benefit of the provisional filing date, because it was not in the provisional. Therefore, it is best to include all the subject matter in your earliest filing. However, sometimes new developments and inventions occur between the time the provisional is filed and the time for filing the non-provisional. If subject matter is to be revised or added to the content of the provisional before the non-provisional is filed, then the process goes back to step 16, 18, and 20 until the you are happy with the non-provisional application. Then at step 23 the non-provisional patent application is filed.

If the first application is a non-provisional, then you proceed directly to step 24 and wait for the patent office to review it.

As you can see, the USPTO does not substantively review provisional patent applications. A non-provisional must be filed for substantive review. Read more about choosing between first filing a provisional or a non provisional application here.

Negotiating (a.k.a Patent Prosecution)

Once the non-provisional  patent application is filed (or design patent application), at step 24, you and your patent attorney wait for the USPTO to examine the patent application. Once received the results of USPTO’s examination are received, you enter the negotiation phase with the USPTO. Patent attorneys call this negotiation phase “patent prosecution.”

Restriction Requirement / Election

First an examiner at the USPTO will determine whether you tried to claim too many inventions in one patent application. If the Examiner believes you have, he or she will issue a restriction requirement. The restriction requirement can be issued in writing or by phone to your patent attorney. If USPTO did not issue restriction requirements, patent applicants could put multiple different inventions in one application. The restriction requirement practice is designed to ensures that the USPTO need only consider one invention per application.

If you receive a restriction requirement on your patent application, then at step 27, you’ll need to elect among the various inventions and claims groups designated by the patent examiner. At that time, you (through your patent attorney) can also object to the restriction requirement and argue that it is  not a proper restriction requirement.

If the restriction requirement is not withdrawn or overturned following an objection by the applicant, or if the applicant chooses not to object, the examiner will examine only the elected invention and corresponding claims. In some cases, unelected inventions can be rejoined in the same application later in the negotiations. In other cases, you must file one or more divisional applications to cover those unelected inventions. The divisional application(s) are provided priority back to the filing date of the original application(s). Therefore, electing among the designated inventions does not mean that you will lose the unelected inventions, if those inventions are rejoined or pursued in divisional applications.

Substantive Examination

After the election or if no restriction requirement is made, the examiner will substantively examine the patent application to determine whether the claimed subject matter in the patent application is new in relation to the prior art and whether the other requirements for patenting are met. The USPTO will issue an “Office Action” explaining the results of their substantive examination.

Allowance

If the patent application is allowed on the first review by the patent office, then at step 26 a patent is very likely to be granted at step 29 if the issue fee is paid at step 28. This is known as first office action allowance. First office action allowance is not very common.

Also, the USPTO can withdraw allowance of application prior to a patent issuing, if they believe the allowance was a mistake. It is not common for an application to be withdrawn from allowance by the USPTO.

Rejection

A study of 20,000 patent applications in 2010 found that between 73% and 96% of the utility patent applications received a rejection on the first review by the USPTO (the first office action). Therefore, it is common for a patent application to be at least partially rejected upon first review. It is further common for a patent application to be allowed after one or more rounds of negotiation following the first rejection. Therefore, it is very common for patent applicants (through their patent attorney) to negotiate with the USPTO in order to obtain a granted patent. A first rejection is usually not the end of the road, it is the beginning of negotiations with the USPTO.

If the patent application is rejected in whole or in part, then at step 30, your patent attorney will review the content of the office action which explains the rejection(s). The patent attorney will also review the prior art references (e.g. prior public patents and patent applications) cited in the office action. The patent attorney will then assess the office action and provide the you  with the your options at step 32 for responding.

As you can see in the diagram at step 34, there are at least four potential options after an office action rejection: drop the application at step 42, draft and file a written response at step 36, request an interview at step 38, or file an appeal at step 40.

1. Drop and Abandon Patent Application

Sometimes the client will decide to drop the application at step 42 in light of the office action. This may be due to the client’s decision, separate from the patenting process, that the invention no longer warrants pursuing patent protection. This may be due to the lack of commercial success of the invention or other business happenings related to the invention or the applicant.

In other cases, the prior art cited by the examiner may be such that the likelihood of obtaining a valuable patent is not high and the client does not want to spend further resources in an attempt to obtain a patent. This may happen in the case where a patent novelty search was not performed before filing the patent application.

In other cases, the prior art cited by the examiner may narrow the scope of the subject matter that could reasonably be protected by a resulting patent to the extent that such protectable subject matter  is not commercially valuable enough to the client to continue pursue the patent application.

If you decide to drop the patent application, a response will not be filed to the office action. After the time period for response has expired the patent application will be abandoned and no patent will issue from it (unless properly revived based unintentional abandonment by petition).

2. File Written Response

If you decide to have a response drafted and filed, then at step 36 the patent attorney will prepare a written response to the office action. The patent attorney may amend the claims to avoid prior art, provide arguments why the examiner’s interpretation of the prior art or the examiner’s assertions are incorrect, provide a declaration from the inventor regarding aspects of the invention, and/or present other arguments or evidence related to the patentability of the claimed invention. The you may provide feedback regarding the written response to the office action. After the office action is filed, you will wait for a subsequent USPTO office action at step 24.

It is not unusual for the applicant to need to file responses to multiple office actions.  Therefore, the applicant will may through steps 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36 and back to step 24 more than once (optionally including one or more rounds of interview at steps 34, 38, 44) .

In some cases, the applicant’s response to the first office action will overcome the prior art references cited by the examiner in the first office action. But the examiner has the option to search for additional prior art references to meet the claim limitations added in the first response. So as long as the applicant is making changes to the claims, the USPTO examiner has the opportunity to search and present new prior art references and arguments addressing those added or changed claim elements.

3. Interview with Patent Examiner

If you decide to proceed with an interview, the patent attorney will contact to the examiner at the USPTO and request an interview on a particular date and time agreeable between the examiner, patent attorney, and sometimes the patent applicant or inventor.

An interview provides the the patent attorney and the applicant/inventor the chance to orally discuss the patent application, the office action, the prior art cited in the office action, possible amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art, and other evidence relevant to the patentability of the invention defined in the claims. Sometimes the patent attorney will send proposed amendments to the patent examiner before the interview occurs. The interview can be held by phone conference or can be held in person at the USPTO’s offices.

At step 44, if the interview is a success, then the examiner will issue a notice of allowance  allowing the patent application to grant into a patent. This process can take a number of forms. In some cases, the examiner will be convinced by the applicant’s argument regarding the allowability of the claims without further amendment. In other cases, the examiner and the applicant may come to an agreement about modifications to the claims  or other actions that would result in an allowance of the application. Sometimes the examiner will put through those amendments directly by way of an examiner’s amendment. Other times the applicant will need to file a written response making the amendments that were agreed to lead to allowance.

In other cases, there is no agreement resulting from the interview, but often the applicant’s attorney learns information from the interview that will help prepare a response or decide whether it is time to appeal. If the interview does not result in an agreement for allowance, then the patent attorney proceeds to step 32 to advise the client about the options in light of the interview. Then at step 34 the client can choose among the options. It is unusual for another interview to immediately follow a prior interview. So after an interview, the options typically are to prepare and file a written response, drop the application, or pursue an appeal.

4. Appeal

Generally, when it appears that no further amendment or argument with the examiner is likely to result in an allowance of claims acceptable to the client, it may be an appropriate time to pursue an appeal. The appeal process is started by filing a notice of appeal at step 40. Then the appeal process proceeds at step 46. A discussion of the appeal process will be provided in a separate post. Obviously, an appeal can result allowance of the patent application, which would then proceed to step 28, although not shown in the flow chart above.

Allowance of Application and Patent Grant

When the USPTO is willing to allow the patent application to issue as a patent, either at step 26 or following a successful interview at step 44, the USPTO will issue a notice of allowance. The notice will indicate the application is allowed and will require the applicant to pay a government issue fee a set time period (usually within three months) of the date of the notice of allowance. At step 28, the issue fee is paid by the applicant (or the applicant’s attorney on behalf of the applicant). Shortly thereafter a patent is granted at step 29. After a utility patent is granted, maintenance fees must be paid at predefined intervals to keep it alive.

While each patent application is different, the flow chart and description above provide a summary of the various steps and decisions that might arise in pursuing a patent application in the US.

Burnt Dough and the Difficulties in Patent Drafting

“[E]ven if, as plaintiff argues, construing the patent to require the dough be heated to 400 degrees to 850 degrees Farenheit [sic] produces a nonsensical result, the court cannot rewrite the claims. Plaintiff’s patent could have easily been written to reflect the construction plaintiff attempts to give it today. It is the job of the patentee, and not the court, to write patents carefully and consistently.” – Colorado United States District Court

Patent claim drafting requires careful attention. The difference between the use of “to” and “at” in a claim directed to a method of producing dough, resulted in the difference between a worthless patent claim and a patent claim that might have had value. This is why going the DIY route with a non provisional utility patent application is very difficult.

Chef America Inc owned US Patent 4,761,290 directed to a process of producing a dough product with certain desirable attributes. Chef lost when it sued  Lamb-Weston for infringement because the patent claim literally required the dough “to be heated to a temperature in the range of about 400° F to 850° F” in Chef America v. Lam-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Heating the dough to that temperature would result in dough that was burned to a crisp, resembling a charcoal briquet. Instead, that patent owner really meant that the dough had to be heated at that temperature. In other words, the oven needed to be set at that temperature. But the internal temperature of the dough did not need to reach that temperature.

Chef American argued that one skilled in the art would recognize the claim meant “at” rather than “to” given the nonsensical result that the dough would be completely burnt if the dough was heated to about 400° F to 850° F. But the court refused to change the claim to avoid the burnt dough result. The district court said:

[E]ven if, as plaintiff argues, construing the patent to require the dough be heated to 400 degrees to 850 degrees Farenheit [sic] produces a nonsensical result, the court cannot rewrite the claims. Plaintiff’s patent could have easily been written to reflect the construction plaintiff attempts to give it today. It is the job of the patentee, and not the court, to write patents carefully and consistently

The Appellate court agreed saying that “courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” The court further stated “Even a nonsensical result does not require the court to redraft the claims of a patent.”

The court noted that references to temperatures in the description of the patent used “at” and “to”  in different places. Therefore when the patent owner choose “to” for use in the claims, the court was constrained from finding it meant “at.”

The court concluded that the claim unambiguously requires that the dough be heated to a temperature in range of 400° F. to 850° F–in other words to be completely burnt to a crisp. As a result, Lamb-Weston did not infringe and Chef America’s patent claims at issue were essentially worthless.

Sometimes errors in a patent can be fixed. In this case the patent owner did not request an amendment to the claims. Rather the patent owner wanted the court to read the claim the way most people would have understood it. But the court would not do that. Patent drafting is not easy. And careful attention is required when drafting patent applications.

How to Control Inventions and Patents Resulting from Joint Development

“…each coowner [of a patent] is ‘at the mercy’ of its other co-owners.” – Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

STC.UNM (the licensing arm of University of New Mexico) was at the mercy of Sandia Corp. regarding STC’s patent.

STC sued Intel Corporation for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,042,998 (the ‘998 patent) in the case of STC.UNM v. Intel Corp., No. 2013-1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). STC and Sandia co-owned the ‘998 patent.

But, Sandia refused to join the lawsuit against Intel, “prefer[ring] to take a neutral position with respect to this matter.” This led the court to dismiss the infringement suit against Intel.

STC was at the mercy of Sandia’s refusal to join the lawsuit. Maybe this lawsuit against Intel could have resulted a large money judgement for STC. But, Sandia’s neutrality was the end of STC’s enforcement of ‘998 patent was against Intel.

All Patent Co-Owners Must Join A Patent Infringement Suit

“[A]ll coowners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit,” the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said. “[O]ne co-owner has the right to impede the other co-owner’s ability to sue infringers by refusing to voluntarily join in such a suit.”

You may say this is not fair. If I’m an owner of a patent, why can’t I sue without the other co-owners?

The court says, “rule requiring in general the participation of all coowners safeguards against the possibility that each coowner would subject an accused infringer to a different infringement suit on the same patent.” In other words, the rule guards against Intel first being sued by STC and then being separately sued by Sandia on the same patent.

Why not just force co-owners to be involuntarily joined to the lawsuit? The court says allowing co-owners to refuse to join a lawsuit “protects, inter alia, a co-owner’s right to not be thrust into costly litigation where its patent is subject to potential invalidation.”

Do you want to be at the mercy of a coowner?

Co-Owners Can Exploit the Patent without Consent or Dividing of Profits

Not only can a co-owner thwart enforcement attempts of a coowner, but a joint owner of a patent can exploit the patented invention in the US without consent or accounting to the other joint owners.

In particular 35 U.S.C. 262 provides, “In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.”

The Problems of Prospecting Without All Patent Co-Owners

The practical impact of section 262 is that if there is a falling out or disagreement between the joint owners, it will be very difficult any of the owners of the patent to license or obtain any benefit from the patent.

Let’s say that the joint owners of the patent are Adam and Bob. If the plan is to license the invention and not make and sell it, then Adam will have a difficult time finding a company to license the invention from Adam, when Bob is not a party to the license. The company will know that it will not have exclusive rights in the invention because Bob could license to the company’s competitors. Non-exclusive licenses are generally less valuable than exclusive licenses owing to the licensee’s need to compete with other licensees. Therefore, at the very least, Adam will not be able to obtain as favorable terms as would be the case if Bob was also involved.

Further, a sales approach of one owner without the other co-owner will be more difficult. A patent savvy potential licensee will inquire as to whether joint owner, Bob, will be a party to the license. And if not, the patent savvy potential licensee may inquire why joint owner Bob is not involved and what were the circumstances of the falling out between Adam and Bob. Then Adam may be in a difficult position of explaining the dirty laundry of the situation between Adam and Bob. And if the explanation is not sufficiently satisfactory, the potential licensee may be concerned that the license will get the licensee in the middle of a dispute between Adam and Bob. Coming to the table with less than all of the joint patent owners may be a deterrent to successful licensing of the patent.

The potential licensee will also be concerned over Adam’s inability to stop third party infringers even if Bob does no licensing or selling of the patented invention. This is because of the requirement, discussed above, that all joint owners of a patent are necessary parties to patent infringement litigation and patent litigation can’t proceed without all necessary parties.

Even a cease and desist or license demand letter short of litigation will be less effective if all patent owners are not on board with enforcement. The Federal Circuit recognized this stating, “Admittedly, a license demand may have less bite if STC cannot sue potential licensees if they refuse….”

Problems Going to Market Alone

In the case where either or both Adam and Bob want to be in the business of selling the patented invention themselves and not licensing, if both Adam and Bob are in the market, Adam will have to compete will Bob and vice versa. Even if only Adam is selling in the marketplace, Adam will be unable to stop infringing competitors if Bob refuses to join in any patent lawsuit/enforcement. If Bob refuses to join in the patent enforcement efforts, the patent is essentially worthless for stopping competitors, except as a scarecrow.

Agreement Options

As you can see there are many downsides to joint ownership of a patent under the default rule provided by section 262. So, I’ll list and discuss a number of possible alternative arrangements.

  1. One Sided. One party owns all the jointly developed subject matter, and the other party:
    1. has no rights in it,
    2. has restricted rights, e.g. can only purchase the subject matter from the owning party, or
    3. has permissive rights, e.g. has a license to the jointly develop subject matter and can go to third parties and permit them make or purchase the subject matter;
  2. Joint Ownership. The parties jointly own the jointly developed subject matter and:
    1. Exclusive Marriage – Work together exclusively regarding the protection and exploitation of the subject matter, and the enforcement and licensing of related IP,
    2. Free For All / Hands Off – Each party can do whatever they want with the jointly owned Patent related to subject matter without accounting, agreement, or interference of the other (this is the same effect as Section 262), or
    3. Somewhere in between 2(A) and 2(B); or,
  3. New entity. The parties form a new legal entity for owning and exploiting the IP. Each party controls the new entity according to the new entity’s operating agreement.

1(A) – One Sided, No Rights If one party owns all the rights and the other party has no rights, this is commonly a consulting situation. One party hires the other party to develop the subject matter. The hiring party pays the other party money. And the hiring party owns all the rights in the subject matter developed by the other. This is common when hiring consultants, such as developers, engineers, and other professional service providers.

This arrangement is not commonly thought of as joint development, but rather a consulting engagement, although in many cases joint development will occur because both the hiring party and the hired party will contribute to the conception and development of the subject matter. The agreement between the parties will have an assignment provision providing that the hiring party will own all the developments of the hired party. Here is a very simple example of assignment statement:

Consultant hereby assigns all right, title, and interest to the Owner in (a) the Work Product and (b) all intellectual property rights in the Work Product.

1(B)One Sided, Some Rights – The next option is that one party owns all the rights and the other party has certain restricted rights (via a non-exclusive license) in the jointly developed subject matter. Such restricted licensed rights could include the right of the non-owning party to make, sell, and/or use the products/services embodying the jointly developed subject matter. Such rights could also include the right to purchase or use the products/services embodying the jointly developed subject matter from the owning party at a preferred or discounted price. Here is an example:

Party A (Owner) grants Party B an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free non-exclusive license to [list the rights, such as: use, make, offer for sale, sell, and import ] the Work Product (“Licensed Rights”). Party B has no right to sub-license any of the Licensed Rights.

Generally these restricted rights do not include the right to sublicense, e.g. allow third parties to make, use, or sell the jointly developed subject matter. If the non-owning party has an unrestricted right to sub-license, then the non-owning party can subvert the patent enforcement efforts of the owning party by granting a targeted infringer a license without the owning party’s consent. So while the owning party can sue without the licensee’s consent or participation, if the infringer can discover the licensee’s right to sublicense and convince the licensee to grant a sublicense, the licensee can subvert the owner’s ability to obtain ongoing royalties/damages and a injunction.

1(C) – One Sided, Generous Rights – The next option is that one party owns all of the rights and the other party has generous rights in the jointly developed subject matter. If such generous rights include the ability to sublicense, then you may run into the problems just described in section 1(B). Nonetheless, since one party owns all of the jointly developed, that party does not need permission from the other to sue third parties.

 2(A) – Joint Ownership, Exclusive Marriage – Under the joint ownership, exclusive marriage agreement, each party jointly owns all of the jointly developed subject matter and contractually agrees to work exclusively with each other in the development, commercialization of the jointly developed subject matter as well in the procurement and procurement of intellectual property rights in the jointly developed subject matter. The parties may agree that one of the parties will exclusively manufacture the products and the other party will exclusively purchase the product from the manufacturing party. The parties may agree that they will share equally in the cost of procurement and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the jointly developed property.

In the exclusive marriage arrangement, it will be critical that the agreement provide procedures to deal with circumstances where one party no longer wants to (1) contribute to the costs of procurement or enforcement of the intellectual property rights, (2) purchase the jointly developed product from the party manufacturing it, if any, (3) sell the jointly developed product, or (4) otherwise work with the other party.

In the case of a breakup of the parties, the agreement could provide that the party no longer wanting to contribute to the procurement or enforcement cost must assign all of that parties rights in the IP to the other party. The agreement could provide that assignment must happen without further consideration, or it could provide that the assignment party must be compensated in some manner at the time of assignment. If the assigning party must be compensated, it would be best to define the amount or a formula or determining the compensation upfront, otherwise the split could lead to litigation over the assignment/compensation, such that the IP rights can’t be enforced or properly procured during the pending litigation or dispute.

Another factor that is critical in the joint ownership arrangement, is to define each parties preexisting products and/or intellectual property. This is particularly important were each party will build on their prior products or intellectual property or will otherwise contribute some of their preexisting products or IP to the jointly developed subject matter. Therefore, the agreement should particularly define, the preexisting products or IP of each party, which are anticipated to be used or incorporated into the jointly developed subject matter.

Then the agreement should make clear, unless the parties intend otherwise, that each party retains their ownership rights in their respective preexisting products/IP. Therefore preexisting products/IP should be described or referenced in the agreement. The description of the preexisting products/inventions of the parties may be provided in the form of reference to a publicly available patent(s) or patent application(s), or by attaching technical descriptions and drawings to the agreement. When attaching technical descriptions and drawings, it is important to be clear as to the scope of what is covered. As in a patent application, the parties may want to broadly describe the prior products/inventions so as not to limit their preexisting rights, to the extent possible or desired. The strategy in each individual case will depend on the circumstances.

2(B) – Free For All / Hands Off.  When jointly developed subject matter is developed under an agreement that does not provide what rights each party has in the jointly developed subject matter, then with respect to patented inventions the default rule of 35 U.S.C. 262 will apply, with the attendant down sides discussed above. This might be called the free-for-all or hands-off approach.

However, note that section 262 applies to join owners of a patent. If the subject matter jointly developed is not eligible for patenting, then it would not apply. Further, even if the subject matter jointly developed is patentable, but a patent application is not filed, it may be doubtful that section 262 applies. If section 262 does not apply, then some other law would control the ownership and use of the jointly developed subject matter. Therefore, it is best to define the ownership and exploitation rules in a joint development agreement rather than relying on section 262–if you did prefer its provisions–to account for handling subject matter to which section 262 does not apply.

2(C) – Middle Ground

As is obvious, a jointed development agreement can be crafted somewhere in between an extremes of an exclusive marriage and a free-for-all.

3 – New Entity

Instead of one party or both parties owning the jointly developed subject matter, neither party can directly own the jointly subject matter. The parties can achieve this by forming a new entity (LLC, Corporation, partnership, etc.) and then can assign each of their respective rights in the jointly developed subject matter to the new entity.

Each party can own the new entity and the new entity’s operating documents can define how the parties will contribute to the development and exploitation of the jointly developed subject mater and related intellectual property. The operating agreement will also define how numerous situations will play out, such as how expenses are divided, how and when revenues are dispersed or reinvested, when one party doesn’t want to contribute further, what to do when one party wants out, and other situations typically accounted for when forming and operating an entity with multiple owners.

The benefit of forming a new entity is that (1) neither party can impede IP enforcement (except as provided in the operating document), (2) licensing and enforcement efforts are not hampered by the lack of all owners being involved, (3) each party “feels” good about co-owning the entity as compared to one-sided ownership arrangements. One downside for forming a new entity is the legal and other costs and time associated with forming and operating a legal entity.

Conclusion

The issues surrounding ownership, exploitation, and expenses related to jointly developed inventions should be address before the joint development effort beings. The default rule is that co-owners of a patent can exploit the patent without permission or accounting to the other co-owners, a situation that is often not desired.

Design Patent Drawings: Surface Shading

DesignPatentCokeBottleDesign patents seek to protect the appearance of an article of manufacture, such as a product or a portion of a product. Therefore, design patents consist mostly of drawings of the invention with a small amount of text. The drawings mostly define the scope of protection that will be provided under the design patent. Therefore, the details of the drawings for design patents are very important.

Surface shading in the drawings may be important to determining whether the patent design covers a particular third party product (e.g. an alleged infringer). The patent rules provide regarding design patent drawings, “Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the surfaces represented.” MPEP 1503.02. The rules further provide, “Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite ….” If the patent application is deemed nonenabling or indefinite a patent may not be granted by the patent office or the resulting patent may be invalid. Therefore, drawings showing only perimeter boundaries with a black line may not be sufficient. The drawings may need to show surface shading with the appropriate shading techniques accepted by the office.

There are two principal type of shading: line shading and stippling (the use of dots). The rules provide “Spaced lines for shading are preferred.” 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m).  The rules continue, “These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings.”

U.S. Patent D48,160 is a design patent on a classic bottle of The Coca Cola Company, which shows the use of line shading. Closely spaced thin vertical shading lines are provided adjacent the valley of each of the vertical grooves to show that the surface curves toward each valley. Closely spaced thin horizontal lines are provided in three horizontal locations at the top of the bottle to show vertical surface curves at horizontal locations near the top opening.

DesignPatentLineShadingU.S. Patent D526,178 provides another example of shading in a design patent. Line shading is predominately used. As the electric drill illustrated has many different curved surfaces, many shading lines are used to show those curved surfaces.

DesignPatentStipplingU.S. Patent D190,563 shows the use of stippling (dots) as shading in a design patent for a car. Shading is providing by varying the density/spacing of the dots. You can see the dots are more closely spaced to show the horizontal fins above each wheel. The dots are more dispersed in other areas, such as the mid-door areas.

As the details of the drawings are very important for design patents, care should be taken in creating the drawings. The use of a professional patent drawings draftsperson is often appropriate to ensure high quality drawings.

Patent Drawings: System Diagrams

9307033_Fig1

When drafting an patent application that has components communicating or connected to each other or to a network, one or more figures showing system level interactions between the components should usually be included. Such figures are common in patents directed to software, methods, computers, or other electronics. As the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure provides, “In a typical computer [patent] application, system components are often represented in a ‘block diagram’ format, i.e., a group of hollow rectangles representing the elements of the system, functionally labeled, and interconnected by lines.” MPEP 2164.06(c).

One requirement in writing a patent application is to enable one skilled in the art area of the particular invention to be able to make and use the invention without undue experimentation from reading the patent application (which later may be come a patent). Drawings are a component of a patent application that convey to the reader, together with the written description, how to make and use the invention.

There are many different ways of representing system information in drawings. Why one patent shows a system drawing in one manner and anther patent shows a system drawing in a different manner is, many times, simply the result of the drafter’s choice. Often there is a choice of whether a particular detail is shown in drawings or is described in the text description only of the patent application. There is no bright line rule for making this determination. It may depend on the invention, the known prior art, the drafter’s preference, and/or other factors. When in doubt as to whether a detail needs to be shown in the drawings, show it in the drawings.

Below are a few examples of system drawings from US patents and published patent applications. After reviewing many different system diagrams you will get a feel for the variety in patent drawings.

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0062845 (the ‘845 publication) provides an example of a system diagram showing a number of different types of client devices 102, 108, 110 that can connect to the network 114.

20160062845_fig1
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0062845

Figure 1 of US Patent No. 9,271,260 shows a basic system diagram. User devices 106A, 106B, and 106N are shown in two-way communication with a base station 102. The base station is shown in communication with a network 100. Note that the user devices a represented as as rectangle and not in 3D as is the case in Figure 1 of the ‘845 publication above.

USPatent9271431_Fig1
US Patent No. 9,271,260

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,277,582 provides another example of a relatively simple system diagram where the user device 106 is within range of each base station 102A and 102B.

US9277582_Fig1
U.S. Patent No. 9,277,582

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0066134 provides another example of a system diagram where the venue 110 is shown as a three dimensional representation of a building. Three dimensional representation is usually not required, unless there is something important about the invention that needs to be demonstrated in in 3D.

 

20160066134_Fig1
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0066134

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,227,535 provides a more detailed system diagram. It is possible that some complexity could have been removed from this figure and put into additional figures. For example, the details within items 30 and 40 could have been omitted from figure 1, but provided in other drawings in the application. Whether detail is provided in one drawing or is conveyed through multiple drawings is often a matter of the drafter’s choice.

9277535_fig1
U.S. Patent No. 9,227,535

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,306,668 discloses a system of networked balloons. But the details of the balloons are not shown in figure 1. Instead they are shown in figure 3.

9306668_Fig1
Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,306,668

 

The balloon in figure 3 is labeled 300, which is different from the the labels of 102A, 102B, etc. in Figure 1. But the text description of the application provides that balloon 102A of figure 1 could be the balloon 300 shown and described in figure 3.

USPat9306668_Fig3
U.S. Patent No. 9,306,668

Figure 1 of U.S Patent No. 9,307,269 provides another example where components have shown internal additional details, such as the clients 123 and the Video Hosting Service 100.

9307269_Fig1
U.S Patent No. 9,307,269

 

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,277,363 shows the use of ellipses in drawings. The ellipse between server 120A and server 120N indicates that other servers can connected to network 140A.

9277363_Fig1
U.S. Patent No. 9,277,363

Figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,307,466 discloses another example of a system diagram. Sometimes wireless communication is shown by a lighting bolt like symbol. However, a line with arrowhead could also be used in combination with a written description describing the communication between the two components being conducted wirelessly.

9307466_fig1
U.S. Patent No. 9,307,466

Figure 1 of US Patent No. 9,307,045 discloses another example of a system diagram. A cloud it often used to indicated a computer network, such as network 125.

US9307045_Fig1
US Patent No. 9,307,045

Figure 1 of US Patent No. 9,306,893 discloses a system diagram where the communication channels 111-a, 111-b, 111-c, etc are labeled with text. This is not required. Instead, nature of the communication at 111-a, 111-b, 111-c, etc could have been described in the text description.

9306893_fig1
US Patent No. 9,306,893

These are just a few examples of system drawings.

The first drawing at the top of the post is from U.S. Patent No. 9,307,033.

Patent Drawings: An Introduction

LegoFig4_US_Pat_3005282One approach to drafting a patent application is to start with the drawings. I think this approach is the probably the best for those embarking on DIY patent drafting.

Once you have the drawings created, writing written description of the patent application, is partially a function of describing what is shown in the drawings and expanding beyond what shown in the drawings. In other words, the drawings can provide the initial road map for drafting the written description. The drawings can be road map because once the parts of the invention shown in the drawings are labeled, you can proceed by describing the parts of the invention and the way that operate or interact with other parts with reference to the parts shown in the drawings.

So, under one approach, to understand how to write a patent application, you must first understand how to create patent drawings. This post provides an introduction to patent drawings.

Table of Contents

  1. When are Drawings Necessary?
  2. When are Drawings Not Necessary?
  3. What Needs to be Shown in the Drawings?
  4. How Many Drawings Do You Need?
  5. Drawings for Different Types of Patent Applications
  6. Black and White Line Drawings
  7. Types of Drawings Views
    1. Perspective Views
    2. Orthogonal Views
    3. Section Views
    4. Cut Away Views
    5. Exploded Views
  8. Demonstrating Movable Parts and Modes of Operation
    1. Arrow and Describe
    2. Broken Lines
    3. Multiple Drawings

1. When Are Drawings Necessary
Drawings are almost always necessary in a patent application. The relevant statute provides, “The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.” 35 U.S.C. 113. It further states, “When the nature of such subject matter admits of illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the Commissioner may require its submission…” Id.

This immediately preceding sentence may seem to indicate that you can add drawings after the application is filed if the patent office requires it. However, this is bad strategy. Since you can not add new subject matter to an application after an application is filed, if your written description does not disclose each and every feature of your new drawings, then your drawings submitted after filing may be rejected.

The old saying provides that a picture is worth a thousand words. In patent applications, a drawing is probably worth more than a thousand words. Therefore, a lot of written text description is necessary to describe each and every feature and detail of a drawing. And, you can see that adding drawings after an application is filed carries a high risk of adding new subject matter to the application and therefore begin refused.

Section 113 provides, “Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein….” In other words, later filed drawings cannot add subject matter to the application.

The bottom line is that you want to submit good drawings with the patent application at the time it is filed.

2. When Are Drawings Not Necessary
Almost never. There are some exceptions, but those exceptions are beyond the scope of this article.

3. What Needs to Be Shown in the Drawings
The first rule is show everything. The next rule is if your not sure whether a feature needs to be shown in the drawings, then show it in the drawings. There is little downside to showing extra details of your invention in the drawings. The more detail the better.

The rules provide that the drawings of an application must show every feature of the claimed invention. 37 C.F.R 1.83(a).

There are times when you can leave details out. But its risky and you should probably ignore all of this information about leaving things out and put everything in. The rule provides, “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” 37 C.F.R 1.83(a).

For example, look at figure 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,959,420, (the ‘420 patent) owned by Chrysler.

US_Patent_5959420_fig1

Figure 1 does not show the internal mechanical components of the transmission, engine, clutch, or differential. Those parts are merely abstracted to rectangles. Why? Because the invention is directed to a method of controlling a power train system for a hybrid electric vehicle. Therefore, the focus is on the electronic control and not on the mechanical internal components of the transmission, engine, clutch, or differential.

If the ‘420 patent was directed to a new gearing arrangement for a transmission, the transmission could not be shown as a rectangle. Instead the mechanical details of the transmission would need to be shown, probably in multiple drawings. For example, the second view of figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,084 shows the internal mechanical components of a portion of a transmission.

USPat_6855084_Fig3

Regardless, you must show how the rest of your invention works and interacts with the conventional part. If you leave details of a component out that you should have included, you can irreversibly damage your patent application. Therefore leaving details out of a patent application is risky. So, show all the details of your invention.

4. How Many Drawings Do You Need?

You will need as many drawings as necessary to show the invention, its various parts, and if applicable, all of its stages of operation. At the least, as discussed above, you need as many drawings as are necessary to show every feature of the claimed invention. 37 C.F.R 1.83(a).

Although, it is not a requirement of utility patent drawings, to be safe you could include a perspective view and a view from each side of the invention (top view, bottom, view, front view, back view, right side view, left side view). These view are discussed in more detail below. In some cases, providing all of those views will be more than is necessary, but not detrimental.

In addition, you should include internal views and/or cut away views to show the internal details of the invention in each mode of operating the invention.

5. Drawings for Different Types of Patent Applications

There are at least three broad types of patents. The most common type is a utility patent, which seeks to protect a process or the way the invention functions or operates. The next type of is a design patent, which seeks to protect the appearance of the invention. The last type is a plant patent, which is rare and will not be discussed here. In this article, I will discuss utility patent drawing. In a future post, I will discuss design patent drawings.

6. Black and White Line Drawings

Normally black and white line drawings are required. 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1). There are some exceptions to this rule that allow for submitting color drawings, grayscale drawings, or photographs. But, the USPTO has particular rules that you must comply with before you can submit color drawings or photographs. See 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2), (b). Here, I’ll focus on line black and white drawings. And you probably should too.

Below is an example from U.S. Patent App. Publication No. 2014/0109700. Figure 11 shows the a gray scale drawing and figure 12 shows a black and white line drawing of the same part with items 44 and 18 in a vertical position. Generally, you should avoid gray scale or color drawings and instead provide black and white line drawings for patent applications, such as shown in figure 12.US20140109700_Fig11_12

Figure 12 is a section view and ideally the section cut surfaces would be shown with a cross-hatching pattern as discussed below. Nonetheless, figures 11 and 12 demonstrate the difference between gray scale drawings (figure 11) and black and white line drawings (figure 12) generally.

7. Types of Drawing Views

There are a number of different types of views of the invention that can be shown in the drawings. I will discuss here perspective, orthogonal, section, cut away, and exploded views. I will also cover how to demonstrate movable parts in an invention. I will cover flow charts, block diagrams, and graphs in a future post.

A. Perspective Views

There’s no rule about what the first drawing should be. However, generally I like to start with a perspective view of the overall invention if it is available. Starting with a perspective view of the invention as figure 1 quickly provides the reader of your patent application with a quick general understanding of your invention.

A perspective view provides a three dimensional representation of the invention from an angle to showing depth. In contrast an orthogonal view, with provides a two-dimensional representation of a side of the invention.

LegoFig4_US_Pat_3005282

What does a perspective view look like? Look at Figure 4. It is from US Patent 3,005,282 (the ‘282 patent) on the Lego toy building block. Figure 4 shows a bottom front perspective view of two building blocks joined together. It also shows one mode of operation of the invention, i.e. one way of connecting two blocks.

Figure 4 provides vertical line shading. Line shading is nice, but not entirely necessary in utility patent drawings, unless showing the curvature or surface treatment of a surface or component is important to the invention. Even when it is important, it might be possible to describe those features in words in the written description rather than show them with line shading.

USD388328_fig1While figure 4 shows the block from a bottom front perspective view, figure 1 from US Patent D688328 (the ‘328 patent) shows a different type of block from a more traditional front (top) perspective view. Also, note that figure 1 does not have any line shading.

Perspective views enable the viewer to more quickly understand the invention, because view more closely replicates what a person would see of the object in real life, as compared to orthogonal views discussed next.

B. Orthogonal Views

An orthogonal view show the invention where one side of the invention is parallel to the drawing surface. Common orthogonal views are a front view, back view, top view, bottom view, right side view, left side view. Below are orthogonal views from the ‘328 patent.

USD388328_figs2-7

As described in the ‘328 patent FIG. 2 is a top view, FIG. 3 is a bottom view, FIG. 4 is a front view; FIG. 5 is a rear view, FIG. 6 is a right side view, and, FIG. 7 is a left side view.

As you can see it is much easier to quickly understand the invention from a perspective view than it is from studying orthogonal views.

How do you determine what is the front view? Sometimes it is not inherently clear which side is the front side of an invention. In such case, you–the drafter–get to decide. All the remaining common orthogonal views follow from the decision of what is the front view, e.g. the rear side is opposite the front side, the top side is opposite the bottom side, and the right side is opposite left side.

In a utility patent application, it is not always necessary to include all of the common orthogonal views. For example, the the ‘283 patent on the Lego block provides only one orthogonal view in figure 2, which is a bottom view (not counting figures 8 through 12 which are of a different variation of the block as compared to that of figure 1). The remaining drawings of figure 1-8 are either a perspective view (figures 1, 4, and 6) or a section view (figure 3, and 5).

C. Section Views

Sometimes it is necessary to show the internal parts and components of a device. To do that, a section view is often used. The section view is taken along a plane that intersects the device/object. Figure 5 of the ‘282 patent provides a section view of the interlocked blocks from figure 4.

USPat_3005282_Fig4_5

Look back to figure 4 and notice that figure 4 has the number “5” located in two places next to arrows on opposite sides of the blocks. Those arrows intersect a broken line that runs along the length of the block and demonstrates the plane along which the section is cut. The arrows show the direction the section view. And the use of the numeral “5” generally indicates the figure in which the section view is provided, e.g. figure 5.

In figure 5, the surface that is “cut” by the section plane is provided with diagonal hatching lines to indicate the section surface. Sometimes the hatching lines are different widths, such as the thin and thick hatching lines of figure 5. And sometimes the hatching lines are all the same width. The section hatching should provide “regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty.”

In the case of figure 5, the section view allows you to see the interaction and connection of the projections 21 of one block with interior and the secondary interior projections 22 of the other block when the blocks are connected as shown in figure 4.

As another example, figure 7 of the ‘282 patent provides a section view along the line 7–7 from figure 6.

US3005282_Fig6_7

D. Cut Away Views

Another way to demonstrate the interior components of an object is to cut away portions parts in the drawing. In a cut away view, only portion(s) of the object are cut as distinguished from a section view where all of the object is cut along the section plane.

Figure 2 from U.S. Patent No. 2,929,922 shows a cut away view of a laser. The cylindrical walls of items 19, 22, and 27 are cut and the location of the cut has section hatching to indicate a cutaway. The cutaway allows a view of items 16, 16a, 17, an 18. USPatent2929922_Fig2

E. Exploded Views

AppleMouse_ExplodedView_USPat4464652

An exploded view allows you to show the relationship and order of parts in an assembly.  Figure 11 of U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 shows an exploded view of a computer mouse. This type of mouse has a ball for tracking the movement of the mouse. The ball 62 and the cap lock 86 are each shown with broken projection lines showing where each would be located in the finally assembled mouse. In addition the curved arrow adjacent the cap lock 86 shows the direction of rotation when the cap lock meets the ridges 84 of the main body 26.

If projection lines showing the path of the parts are not used, a bracket should be used to show all the parts the are a part of the exploded assembly. For example, Figure 1 of U.S. Patent 5,526,536 provides a bracket at 10 demonstrating that parts 42, 16, 12, 60, 62, and 14 are all a part of the exploded assembly. While some projections lines (e.g. between parts 18 and 20) are used in Figure 1, projection lines do not connect all of the parts, so a bracket is necessary.

USPat5526526_Fig1

8. Demonstrating Movable Parts and Modes of Operation

There are a number of ways of demonstrating the movement or multiple positions of a part(s) in an invention.

A. Arrow and Describe

The first way is to provide an arrow on the drawing and describe in the text how the object moves and interacts with the other parts of the invention. This was done in figure 11 of the Apple mouse patent shown above. A curved arrow is shown adjacent to the locking cap 86. The text description explains that “In operation, a user desiring to insert or remove ball 62 from the cursor control unit 20, may unlock and remove the lock cap 86 from the orifice 82 by simply rotating the cap such that the tabs 88 and ridges 84 no longer interleaf.”

B. Broken Lines

The Wright Bothers Patent No. 821,393 on a flying machine shows the use of broken lines to demonstrate a moved position of the wings in figure 1. The broken lines at items c and g and items a and e show those portions of the wing in a raised position. The broken lines at items b and items f and d show those portions of the wing in a lowered position. The solid lines show the home position of the wing.

USPat821393_WrightBrosPlane

Regarding alternative or moved positions of parts, the USPTO says, “A moved position may be shown by a broken line superimposed upon a suitable view if this can be done without crowding; otherwise, a separate view must be used for this purpose.” So, next we will discuss the use of multiple views.

C. Multiple Drawings

The third way to demonstrate the movement or multiple positions of parts is to create a drawing showing the part in each of its positions. The charcoal grill of US Patent No. 3,688,758 shows the grill with the lid 28 closed on top of the grill in figure 1 and the lid hanging by hanger 62 off the side of the grill in figure 3.

Grill_USPatent_3688758_Fig_1_3

This post provides a introductions to patent drawings. In future posts, I’ll cover other aspects of patent drawings and other types of drawings, such as flow charts, block diagrams, and graphs.