37 CFR 1.130 contains no provision that “[o] riginal exhibitions of drawings, recordings or photocopies of such drawings or photocopies shall be attached to and form part of the affidavit or declaration or that their absence shall be satisfactorily explained”, contrary to the Requirement for such exposures in 37 CFR 1.131 (b), since, in some cases, an affidavit or a statement below 37 CFR 1,130 does not necessarily have to be accompanied by such exhibits (e.g.B. a statement from the inventor or co-inventor may be sufficient. However, where additional evidence is required, such exhibits must be accompanied by an affidavit or a statement in accordance with 37 CFR 1.130. In addition, an affidavit or a statement in accordance with 37 CFR 1.130 must be accompanied by all exhibits that the applicant or patent owner wishes to invoke. See MPEP § 717.01 (c) for more information on the formal requirements of a declaration or affidavit and all attachments. In addition, AIA§ 103 removes pre-AIA § 103 (b), a rarely used exception, expressly invoked by the notifying parties in certain limited circumstances and which applies only to the non-opening of biotechnological inventions. [48] AIA § 103 also deletes Article 103 of pre-AIA § 103 (c), but the corresponding provisions are found in Aia § 102 (b) (2) (C) and Article 102 (c), as discussed above. What if Company Y had filed its patent application before it learned of the filing from University X? All may not be lost. Depending on the circumstances, Company Y may be able to abandon its application and resubmit it after perfecting the common ownership or JRA. This is due to the fact that nothing in the CREATE Act prohibits its application to research activities that have already given rise to potentially patentable inventions at the time of the execution of the JRA or common ownership contract. Indeed, Congress has included a section in the AIA in which it is expressly stated that AIA§ 102(c) should continue to be interpreted with the same intent as under the CREATE Act (i.e., promoting joint research).26 It is not mandatory that the affidavit prove that disclosure by the inventor, a co-inventor or other who received the object disclosed directly or indirectly by an inventor or co-inventor, a disclosure “permitting” the object within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.

112 (a). See MPEP § 2155.04. There is much to consider and this hands-on webinar will clarify the risks and benefits of universities and their industrial partners who wish to concede jointly developed innovations. Only that part of the third party`s submission that was previously included in an inventors` disclosure (i.e., the same subject matter) is excluded as prior art, in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In other words, any part of the third party`s disclosure that was not part of the inventor`s previous disclosure remains available for use in a prior art refusal. Therefore, auditors should be aware that a statement under 37 CFR 1.130(b) can only disqualify part of a disclosure applied in the event of a refusal in an official act and that other parts of the disclosure may remain available as prior art. . . .