Federal Circuit: Contributions to Patented Cooking Method Not Meaty Enough for Joint Inventorship

June 5, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

The Federal Circuit has reversed the District of Delaware’s ruling that added an inventor to a patent. The Federal Circuit found that the contribution by the added inventor was not significant when measured against the invention as a whole, thereby defeating the bid to change inventorship.

The patent owner Hormel Foods obtained a patent for a two-step method of precooking bacon and meat pieces. The first step required preheating the meat to seal in desired flavors. The second step used a higher temperature to prevent unwanted flavors. The patent had three independent claims, including one claim that required a microwave oven to be used for the first step, and another claim that gave the option of a microwave oven, an infrared oven or hot air to be used for the first step. The method was researched and developed under a joint agreement between Hormel and another company that was eventually called HIP.

Approximately three years after the patent issued, HIP filed suit alleging that one of its employees should be either a sole inventor or a joint inventor. HIP contended that the employee had contributed the infrared heating concept during discussions of the testing research. The district court ruled in favor of HIP, finding that the employee was a joint inventor. On appeal, Hormel argued that the district court erred by finding that the employee’s alleged contributions merited joint inventorship, and by finding that HIP had met the evidentiary requirements for corroboration of the employee’s testimony.

The Federal Circuit began its analysis by setting out the burdens for joint inventorship and the three-part test from Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A person claiming to be a joint inventor of an issued patent must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence. To qualify as a joint inventor, the person must (1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention; (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention; and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.

The Federal Circuit focused its analysis on the second Pannu factor. The court found that the employee’s contribution of using an infrared oven in the first step was insignificant in quality to the claimed method. The court juxtaposed the patent’s discussion of using different heat sources. Use of an infrared oven was discussed only once in the specification, and even then only as an alternative to a microwave oven. Further, as a claim limitation, use of an infrared oven was only in one of the three independent claims, and only as part of a Markush group. In contrast, use of a microwave oven featured heavily in the specification and claims. In particular, the examples and figures showed using a microwave oven or other heat sources, not an infrared oven. The court found that the microwave oven was central to the cooking methods disclosed.

The Federal Circuit did not analyze the other Pannu factors, stating that the employee’s failure to meet any one factor doomed the bid for joint inventorship. Further, the court explained that it did not need to reach the issue of corroboration because the issue had been mooted.

Practice Tip: A party wishing to challenge inventorship to add an inventor faces a high bar. First, the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Second, the putative inventor must meet all three parts of the Pannu test, which includes considering the description of the invention and the scope of the claims in the patent. Litigants should consider how to develop the evidentiary record to best serve their goals in light of the burden and tests for joint inventorship.

HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696, 2023 WL 3184358 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023) (Lourie, Clevenger, Taranto)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.