Standing to Sue to Correct Inventorship in a Federal Court under 35 U.S.C. § 256 Requires Ownership Interest or Direct Financial Rewards if Corrected

Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., No. 2008-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2009):

Holding:

If an alleged inventor lacks an ownership interest or being declared the sole inventor will not generate any other direct financial rewards, the alleged inventor has no constitutional standing to sue for correction of inventorship in federal court under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Slip op. at 12.

Relevant Facts:

An inventor assigned all his rights in a patent to his company. Believing he was misled, however, he sued the company alleging fraud, among other claims, and seeking declaration that he is the sole inventor of the patent.

Because he has no concrete financial interest in the correction of the patents in this case because he has assigned away all of his patent rights, and he claims no purely reputational interest in the patents, the Court held that he has no standing to bring a stand-alone action under § 256, unless and until Larson obtains equitable relief that restores his ownership right.

Comment:

Reputational Injury? The Court leaves open the question of whether a purely reputational interest is sufficient to confer standing for a § 256 claim. Id. at 13. If the opportunity arises, I believe the Court will find that reputational injury is sufficient to confer standing for a § 256 claim. Specifically, the line between financial injury and reputational injury is very superficial nowadays. Obviously, reputation leads to financial rewards, as it allows a person to enhance his resume and thus secure a better paying job.