Federal Circuit: Contributions to Patented Cooking Method Not Meaty Enough for Joint Inventorship

June 5, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

The Federal Circuit has reversed the District of Delaware’s ruling that added an inventor to a patent. The Federal Circuit found that the contribution by the added inventor was not significant when measured against the invention as a whole, thereby defeating the bid to change inventorship.

The patent owner Hormel Foods obtained a patent for a two-step method of precooking bacon and meat pieces. The first step required preheating the meat to seal in desired flavors. The second step used a higher temperature to prevent unwanted flavors. The patent had three independent claims, including one claim that required a microwave oven to be used for the first step, and another claim that gave the option of a microwave oven, an infrared oven or hot air to be used for the first step. The method was researched and developed under a joint agreement between Hormel and another company that was eventually called HIP.

Approximately three years after the patent issued, HIP filed suit alleging that one of its employees should be either a sole inventor or a joint inventor. HIP contended that the employee had contributed the infrared heating concept during discussions of the testing research. The district court ruled in favor of HIP, finding that the employee was a joint inventor. On appeal, Hormel argued that the district court erred by finding that the employee’s alleged contributions merited joint inventorship, and by finding that HIP had met the evidentiary requirements for corroboration of the employee’s testimony.

The Federal Circuit began its analysis by setting out the burdens for joint inventorship and the three-part test from Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A person claiming to be a joint inventor of an issued patent must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence. To qualify as a joint inventor, the person 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.

The Federal Circuit focused its analysis on the second Pannu factor. The court found that the employee’s contribution of using an infrared oven in the first step was insignificant in quality to the claimed method. The court juxtaposed the patent’s discussion of using different heat sources. Use of an infrared oven was discussed only once in the specification, and even then only as an alternative to a microwave oven. Further, as a claim limitation, use of an infrared oven was only in one of the three independent claims, and only as part of a Markush group. In contrast, use of a microwave oven featured heavily in the specification and claims. In particular, the examples and figures showed using a microwave oven or other heat sources, not an infrared oven. The court found that the microwave oven was central to the cooking methods disclosed.

The Federal Circuit did not analyze the other Pannu factors, stating that the employee’s failure to meet any one factor doomed the bid for joint inventorship. Further, the court explained that it did not need to reach the issue of corroboration because the issue had been mooted.

Practice Tip: A party wishing to challenge inventorship to add an inventor faces a high bar. First, the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Second, the putative inventor must meet all three parts of the Pannu test, which includes considering the description of the invention and the scope of the claims in the patent. Litigants should consider how to develop the evidentiary record to best serve their goals in light of the burden and tests for joint inventorship.

HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696, 2023 WL 3184358 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023) (Lourie, Clevenger, Taranto)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.