IN RE VERHOEF
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Federal Circuit Summary
Before Newman, Mayer, and Lourie. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An application is unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) when the application does not name the correct inventors.
After relations with a co-inventor (Lamb) soured, VerHoef abandoned a previously-filed patent application listing two inventors (VerHoef and Lamb) and filed a substantially identical application listing himself as the sole inventor. The Examiner rejected all claims of the later-filed application as unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). VerHoef appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which concluded that Lamb was a joint inventor of the claimed invention and sustained the Examiner’s rejection.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit found that Lamb qualified as an inventor because she contributed an essential feature of the invention that was not insignificant in quality or well-known in the art. Because the application did not name the correct inventors and the applicant did not file a request to correct inventorship, the Federal Circuit held that the Board properly sustained the examiner’s rejection of the claims under § 102(f).
This case is: IN RE VERHOEF
Written by: Paul Chang, Ph.D. and Christie Matthaei
Edited by: Paul Stewart
More insights
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case
Ridge Corp. et al. v. Kirk NationaLease Co. et al. , Appeal No. 2025-1254 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2026) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court…
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP , Appeal No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling reversing a $107.5 million jury verdict against AstraZeneca in a case…
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Appeal No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 23, 2026)
CASE OF THE WEEK Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Appeal No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 23, 2026) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment invalidating all claims of Enanta’s Patent No. 11,358,953 as…