David Murray required to prove patent co-inventor status
Christopher John Burke, Entrepreneur and Inventor, has requested David Murray (removed chairman of AMP), to show proof of his status as a co-inventor in a Christopher Burke USA registered patent.
The patent, 12/366, 101 (8,458,484), 'Password Generator', was conceived by Christopher John Burke and submitted to David Murray. However, the rules in relation to recognition of co-inventor are very clearly defined in the following documents.
David Murray, are you aware of the patent law in relation to the requirements of a co-inventor? See below. I have correspondence with Spruson and Ferguson that indicates your lack of involvement in the formulation of the patent, 'password generator' one time password with biometrics verification', therefore request your proof of participation through your own personal records, communications with me or writings of your inventive step.
I need your correspondence that proves your inventive step as soon as possible. Failure to comply will assure me you have nothing and that I was mistaken in the requirements of a co-inventor and may need to make a correction in the form of a patent misjoinder application.
“[T]o be a joint inventor, an individual must make a contribution to the conception of the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention.” Fina Oil (Fed. Cir. 09/02/97) (“[A] joint invention is simply the product of a collaboration between two or more persons working together to solve the problem addressed.”); In Re VerHoeff (Fed. Cir. 05/03/18) (aff’g rejection of claims under Sec. 102(f) because sole applicant not sole inventor; contributor of “essential feature” of claimed invention is joint inventor). This requires more than merely exercising ordinary skill in the art—“a person will not be a co-inventor if he or she does no more than explain to the real inventors concepts that are well known [in] the current state of the art.” Id. Accord Cardiaq (Fed. Cir. 09/01/17) (non-precedential) (aff’g judgment based on advisory jury verdict adding unnamed co-inventors to patent; alleged co-inventor must made a contribution to conception of at least one claim “‘that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention.’” Not enough to merely explain well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.” But explaining non-public, secret Sec. 102(e) prior art may be enough.); Tavory (Fed. Cir. 10/27/08) (non-precedential); Nartron (Fed. Cir. 03/05/09) (one suggesting the sole element added by a dependent claim was not co-inventor where that element was in the prior art, adding it to this invention was within ordinary skill in the art, and contribution of that element “was insignificant when measured against the full dimension of the invention”).
Follow us on Twitter:
Group against Patent Trolls.