Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 JUNE 2026

Intellectual Property Report

Baker Botts L.L.P.
Baker Botts L.L.P.
Contributor
Baker Botts L.L.P.

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Baker Botts is a leading international law firm with 11 offices located in the US, Europe, and the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Baker Botts L.L.P.

Inventorship is an often overlooked detail in patent law that is a statutory condition tied to validity, ownership, standing, and enforceability.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Baker Botts
Baker Botts

Patent Invalidity Due to Incorrect Inventorship

Brian Hausman

Inventorship is an often overlooked detail in patent law that is a statutory condition tied to validity, ownership, standing, and enforceability. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., 171 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2026), makes that point sharply: where a patent omits a true inventor and the error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256, the patent is invalid.

In Fortress, the patents initially named only Fortress’s owner and an employee as inventors. Fortress later acknowledged that two vendor-side employees, Alfonso Lin and Hua-Ping Huang, were coinventors. Although Fortress added Lin through the PTO process, it could not locate Huang and sought court-ordered correction under Section 256(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity because Huang was an omitted coinventor and Fortress could not satisfy Section 256(b)’s notice-and-hearing requirement.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from