Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

motion to correct inventorship

Read a random definition: actual market value

A quick definition of motion to correct inventorship:

Term: Motion to Correct Inventorship

Definition: A motion to correct inventorship is a request made during a patent application process to add one or more inventors who were not originally named. This request is usually made in an interference proceeding. If the request is granted, the unnamed inventors will be added to the patent application. However, if there is a valid reason not to add them, the motion may be denied.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: A motion to correct inventorship is a request made in a patent interference proceeding to add one or more unnamed coinventors to the patent application. This motion will be granted unless there is evidence to suggest that the proposed inventor(s) did not contribute to the invention.

Example: Let's say that John and Jane filed a patent application for a new type of solar panel. However, they later discovered that their colleague, Bob, had also contributed to the invention. In this case, John and Jane could file a motion to correct inventorship to add Bob to the patent application as a coinventor.

Explanation: The example illustrates how a motion to correct inventorship can be used to add a previously unnamed coinventor to a patent application. In this case, John and Jane realized that Bob had contributed to the invention and wanted to ensure that he received credit for his work. By filing a motion to correct inventorship, they could add Bob to the patent application as a coinventor.

motion to compel discovery | motion to dissolve interference

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
15:09
guys is there any chance for me to get into T14s? I applied to some but was convinced to apply to the rest, just feel its too late in the cycle for my stats (170 3.68)
more likely than not you make it into at least one t14
15:14
Hey long time no see hahaha, the prob with that is it has the range of up to 172, Im only 170
15:14
If u have the top range at my stats, there's only like 9 ppl who made it into T14s
yeah but it's also including people below your stats
15:15
Yeah, really my issue is deciding whether to R&R or to just take UF law
also if you reduce the top end of lsat to 170, you have a 33% chance at NYU+columbia, 67% at NU, 33 at mich, 40% berk, 40% UCLA, 100% Cornell, and 50% gulc
realistically you would make it into at least one
15:16
I'm still waiting on a bunch of T14 so hopefully those stats are a good indicator
15:16
idk wait it out - if good offer take if no good offer R&R
i dont think you need to R&R im pretty sure you make it into at least one t14
but if you apply earlier its just a lot easier
15:17
thats odd I didn't see those stats, but ok. We talked abt this awhile back and I'm working on Columbia + Berkeley rn then Cornell, probs is I'm not gonna produce good Why X's before the 25th but whatever
https://www.lsd.law/search/cV9E6 this is artificially deflated because it's only below your stats
someone got into harvard and chicago with your stats
15:19
Why is that deflating it? isnt that a better indicator instead of choosing above median LSATs? Genuinely curious just wondering
when stats are close because of the variability you want a little above your stats and a little below to get more data, adcoms arent so finnicky that 2 points on the lsat is make or break unless it puts you above median, and even then 50% are below median so it's not as big of an impact as you might think. the reason the chanceme tool goes a little above and below your stats by default is to capture a more accurate picture
ie your softs/WE/essays might make you more or less competitive than any random applicant and the best way to account for that is to take a little above and a little below
15:21
got it, I was of the mindset that medians are pretty concrete so taking a +2 LSAT score range was just giving me irrelevant data. Thank you
15:21
Def my softs/essays are the strongest part of my application so hoping they shine through
they kind of are but you see with the data here is doesnt really change your chances going from 172 to 170
yeah youll be in a good place for this cycle
15:22
yeah I guess thats true, I've also been looking at "Included" not "Only" for URM so maybe that's a diff too
15:22
Appreciate it man!
yeah included is giving you data for nURM which isnt relevant for your cycle
and ofc, good luck :)
15:24
Holiday messages from law schools should be illegal
jackfrost11770
15:27
the cornell one actually gave me a heart attack no joke
15:28
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Thanks! Will def update you as they come out hahaha
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.