A common misconception of the default rules of patent ownership is that they follow closely the work for hire doctrine often experienced by those who author or have authored creative works. So, when an employee is directed to write a report, the employer is understood to own the copyright to the work product. But, what if the employee, on her own, thinks up an entirely new employee incentive scheme — say for example that she applies mathematical techniques in new ways to calculate incentives for various forms of productive employee behavior and then deliver the scheme-derived bonuses via automatic deposits to the bank accounts of several rewarded employees?
Let’s say this inventive employee charts out her scheme, provides it to her employer in confidence and her employer wishes to adopt the scheme. Under US patent law, this business method may be patentable subject matter. Perhaps the employer has an automatic license in the invention via the “shop rights” doctrine, but perhaps not. The employer would be wise to buy an assignment of the invention from the employee prior to implementing the scheme as explained in https://inspirationfeed.com/inventhelp/ article. Pursuing a patent on this might then be the option of the employer rather than the employee.
Differentiate the Claims, Have More than one Exemplary Embodiment
Unless you have not heard of the US Federal Circuit, it may be news that drafting claims in US non-provisional (utility) patent applications just got kicked up a notch. The reliance on the Doctrine of Claim Differentiation by the Court in recent cases has heightened the expectation of the use of successive dependent claims to signal the breadth intended to be construed in the independent and broader dependent claims that may precede it.
In addition, when one attempts to broaden by eliminating what may be an optional element or step in let’s say an independent claim, the specification should teach the broadened device or process being claimed. Continuing with this theme, the more exemplary embodiments present in the detailed description, along with sets of exemplary functional equivalents and structural equivalents defined by examples, the greater the tendency it seems for the Court to find support for the breadth of claim scope construction being sought.
If you are not a US patent practitioner, would like to write and file your own patents, and are insensitive to the outcome, then please go to http://www.uspto.gov/. Otherwise, please contact a patent professionals, such as InventHelp company, or patent attorneys.