Federal Circuit Affirms Co-Inventor Rights in Gas Cylinder Transport Patent Dispute: Campbell v. TUBE-MAC Industries
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | Campbell v. TUBE-MAC Industries, Inc. |
| Numéro de dossier | 22-2170 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Tribunal | Circuit fédéral, appel de la cour de district |
| Durée | Aug 2022 – Mar 2024 562 days |
| Résultat | Co-Inventorship Affirmed |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | Methods of fabricating Type 4 cylinders and transportation housings for gaseous fluids |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
Individual plaintiff asserting sole inventorship rights over patents relating to Type 4 composite cylinder technology.
🛡️ Défendeur
Established industrial manufacturer contesting Campbell’s sole inventorship claim, with operations in pressure piping and fluid conveyance systems. Individual defendants Gary Mackay and Dan Hewson were affirmed as co-inventors.
Les brevets en cause
Two patents covering methods of fabricating and arranging Type 4 cylinders for gaseous fluid transport were central to this dispute. Type 4 cylinders are critical for hydrogen transport, clean energy, and industrial gas applications.
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,376,049 — Method of fabricating Type 4 cylinders and arranging them in transportation housings.
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,965,780 — Related continuation covering similar subject matter.
Vous développez une technologie similaire ?
Ensure your IP ownership and inventorship are clear from the outset.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the district court’s decision, confirming that **Gary Mackay and Dan Hewson are co-inventors on U.S. Patent No. 9,376,049**. The court found Campbell’s remaining arguments unpersuasive, issuing a straightforward affirmance without remand.
Principales questions juridiques
The Federal Circuit’s analysis focused on the critical ‘inventorship question’ under 35 U.S.C. § 256, evaluating whether individuals contributed to the conception of at least one claim. The court reinforced the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard required to overturn inventorship determinations on appeal, underscoring the demanding evidentiary burden in such disputes.
Inventorship & Patent Ownership Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in Type 4 cylinder technology and collaborative development. Choose your next step:
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
Découvrez les risques et les implications spécifiques liés à ce litige.
- Voir tous les brevets liés à ce domaine technologique
- See which companies are most active in Type 4 cylinder IP
- Understand inventorship claim patterns
🔍 Check My Collaboration’s Risk
Run a comprehensive IP ownership analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your project description or technical contributions
- AI identifies potentially ambiguous inventorship situations
- Get actionable IP ownership assessment report
Inventorship Challenges
Collaborative development creates risks
Brevets associés
In Type 4 cylinder space
Clear IP Agreements
Indispensable pour atténuer les risques
✅ Points clés à retenir
Inventorship determinations require *clear and convincing evidence* to disturb on appeal — build the evidentiary record at the district court level.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →Co-inventorship under § 256 turns on conceptual contribution to at least one claim; reduction-to-practice contributions alone are insufficient.
Explorer les précédents →Pro se patent appellants face significant structural disadvantages before the Federal Circuit, reinforcing the value of specialized counsel.
Understand appellate strategy →Audit inventorship records on patents developed in collaborative or multi-party environments, particularly in clean energy and industrial manufacturing sectors.
Évaluer le niveau de risque de mon portefeuille →Co-inventor status creates independent licensing rights — a material consideration in M&A due diligence and portfolio transactions.
Learn more about licensing →Early IP ownership agreements in joint development relationships are essential risk management tools to prevent future disputes.
View agreement templates →Foire aux questions
The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,376,049 (App. No. 14/239,938) and U.S. Patent No. 9,965,780 (App. No. 15/688,566), both covering methods of fabricating Type 4 cylinders for gaseous fluid transport.
The court found that Mackay and Hewson qualified as co-inventors on the ‘049 patent based on their conceptual contributions, and that Campbell failed to present persuasive arguments sufficient to overcome the district court’s findings under the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.
The decision reinforces that collaborative industrial development creates shared inventorship exposure. Companies in composite cylinder and hydrogen transport sectors should proactively audit inventorship documentation and implement robust IP ownership agreements in joint development contexts.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 22-2170 (Campbell v. TUBE-MAC Industries, Inc.)
- USPTO Patent Public Search
- PACER — Federal Circuit Docket Records (Case No. 22-2170)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 256
- PatSnap — Solutions de veille en matière de propriété intellectuelle pour les cabinets d'avocats
Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.