Can a patent lawyer hold a patent or is that a conflict of interest?
<p>Is there a law that prevents a patent lawyer from using his position to modify failed patents he hears about and create a successful patents for himself?  I can see that being a conflict of interest.</p>

<p>If the patent lawyer &quot;hears about&quot; such failed patents from clients, and then uses the client's work and modifies them into successful patent filings, that would seem to be a clear conflict of interest, just as a business lawyer cannot use info learned from a client to make his own business deals, unless the client grants an OK.</p>
<p>But if the patent lawyer just hears through shoptalk, or through communication by, perhaps, patent examiners that the lawyer works with, I don't see any conflict of interest, although as the comment by Eugene Styer suggests, there is likely to be enough prior art to make the patent invalid.</p>

<p>A patent lawyer can own a patent.</p>
<p>A patent lawyer can also be an inventor who doesn't use ideas from his or her clients.</p>
<p>If the patent lawyer's invention is actually derived from an appropriation of client ideas about which the patent lawyer was consulted, there can be a violation of professional duties by the lawyer, although the fact pattern contemplated by the body text of the question is not usually how it arises.</p>
<p>A more common fact pattern (although still extremely rare) which I have seen arise in practice, is one in which a patent lawyer is approached by two independent sets of clients who have a similar patentable idea for which no patent application has yet been filed, with one of those clients financing the work in part by giving the patent lawyer part-ownership in the patent to be sought, and the other offering to pay by the hour. Then, the lawyer uses information obtained from one potential client offering to pay on a purely fee for services basis whom he declined to represent further, to assist the other client obtain a patent enhanced by the other client's ideas.</p>

<h2>Nothing prevents a patent lawyer from owning a patent.</h2>
<p>While a patent lawyer can own patents, trying to <em>fix</em> failed patent application doesn't in itself grant any valid patent, because prior applications of an item mean the item is prior art.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is there a law that prevents a patent lawyer from using his position to modify failed patents he hears about and create a successful patents for himself?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/115" rel="nofollow noreferrer">35 U.S.C. 115</a> requires the applicant to execute an oath stating that he is the inventor(s) or is duly authorized by the inventor(s) to apply for the patent.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I can see that being a conflict of interest.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regardless of the lawyer's relation (if any) with the inventor(s), the lawyer's scheme would hinder &quot;<em>the very point of patents, which exist to promote creation</em>&quot;, <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20130613e08" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ass'n or Molecular Pathology v. Myriad</em>, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)</a>.</p>

united-states patents conflict-of-interest