I have seen such confirmation orders used as evidence of a transfer request to the EPO, but it was not for me to question them, although the whole procedure seemed rather fishy. Once upon a time there was a nice small A business, which was threw away by Company B. A year later, Company B was again purchased by C lock, stock and barrel. A, B and C were in three different countries. The European representative of A continued to follow the Ep cases, but took the trouble to apply for a transfer when a given application was about to expire, with, in most cases, a confirmation allowance, written by a US notary. The document indicates that the investigation period has been transferred from A to the three companies Ca, Cb and Cc, all of which are probably 100% subsidiaries of C. I will conclude that the applications are jointly held by the three companies. The mission is signed by the officers of Ca, Cb and Cc, as well as by the notary. The document could not have been signed by the ace officers, as A no longer existed at that time. Nor is there any question of Company B, so the document does not describe what actually happened, because A could never have dealt directly with C. The agent`s letter only requires the transfer to Ca, cb and Cc being left out of the picture, and This is the only name on the EPO register. I searched a little on Google and discovered that in his ultimate year, B wrote that he now owned the entire IP of B, and C later discovered in his own annual report that B`s IP was now in another CD subsidiary, unlike Ca, Cb or Cc.In a case, the rewrite post questioned the task of confirming , because it bore only the signature of one of the parties.
The representative insisted that the assignment should be taken at face value, and that was it. The EPO did not insist and took the transmission – only in Case Name . In one of the entries, this examiner was bony enough to consider a refusal, which led the representative to file a “divisional application” to run the show. What is strange is that the “Divisional” was in the name of A, whereas it had not existed for years. The new application was eventually abandoned, so that not all the interesting questions that arose were answered. Right from the start, I think I would start hitting and yelling at who actually holds a patent (and therefore empowered to sue) if I ever got a infringement action if a confirmation assignment was involved. The standard of proof of a transfer of rights seems much lower than the right to transfer an objection. A confirmation assignment may appear to be a practical link, but it may be a bad storage. With respect to the argument that a confirmation award can keep the details secret, I do not think they are worth it either.
I have seen that IP sales contracts have been accepted as evidence of a transfer to the EPO, where more black ink has been poured into opaque passages that the CIA has never used when declassifying a document. BTW, one of these contracts, was for another of C`s grants that transfer their IP addresses to numbered companies that are comfortably in flexible areas. Lots of interesting comments about the tasks. This is another related subject, perhaps fundamental in relation to a confirmation allocation according to the original model. Suppose the inventor gave his employer a mandate for a provisional patent application in the United States, including the transfer of all subsequent applications using the standard language for international, U.S. and non-U.S. applications.