(Total Views: 536)
Posted On: 12/30/2021 7:14:30 PM
Post# of 9144
Re: rayludwiczak #8752
Good read, only scanned will read sometime. Notice the discussion on your link seems to be employer maintaining rights when "employee" invents something. Bret is not a employee, I have no idea what that entails. Your link also emphasis the need to have an assignee.
IMO these are the only two patents that remain of concern,
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9034583B2...ventor src="/m/images/icons/icon_sad.gif" class="post_smiley" /> Bret+T.+Barnhizer)+n-assey
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10844442B...q=10844442
There is no assignee, nowhere do you see the name Nanologix. But NNLX have said they can't do it on their own so in a way it makes sense there is none.
If NNLX goes BC I don't know if it matters that NNLX is assignee on the patent? As I understand it a patent can have more than one assignee,
Don't go to the bank on anything I say.
IMO these are the only two patents that remain of concern,
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9034583B2...ventor
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10844442B...q=10844442
There is no assignee, nowhere do you see the name Nanologix. But NNLX have said they can't do it on their own so in a way it makes sense there is none.
If NNLX goes BC I don't know if it matters that NNLX is assignee on the patent? As I understand it a patent can have more than one assignee,
Don't go to the bank on anything I say.
(0)
(0)
