VerHoef는 2명의 발명자(VerHoef and Lamb)가 기재된 이전의 출원을 포기하고 본인 단독 발명자로 기재해 실질적으로 동일한 출원을 제출했다.

심사 과정에서 심사관은 미국 특허법 102조(f)에 따라 거절했다. 정확한 발명자 이름을 기재해야 하며 이를 기재하지 않으면 특허가 유효하지 않기 때문이다.

연방 순회 항소 법원은 이러한 특허청의 심사결과를 지지했다. 본 건에서 Lamb의 기여도는 중요하지 않았다고 판단했다. 

CAFC Confirmed Joint Inventorship

In Re: VerHoef 

An application is unpatentable under S102(f) when the application does not name the correct inventors:

• There were two inventors. But, after their relationship became bad, VerHoef abandoned a previously filed application listing two inventors (VerHoef and Lamb) and filed a substantially identical application listing himself as the sole inventor.

• During the prosecution, the examiner rejected all claims of the later filed application under S102(f).

• VerHoef appealed to PTAB, but failed.

• VerHoef appealed to the Federal Circuit, but failed again for the following reasons. 

A joint inventor must:

(1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention,

(2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and

(3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.

Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

• 35 U.S.C. §102(f) “makes the naming of the correct inventor or inventors a condition of patentability; failure to name them renders a patent invalid.” 

Pannu, 155 F.3d at 1349-50

• Here, Lamb’s contribution was not insignificant in quality and was not well-known in the art, thus, she should have been named as the inventor.