Is it necessary to submit an affidavit with a derivation proceeding petition that addresses communication and lack of authorization?

In a derivation proceeding, the purpose is to resolve disputes regarding the true inventor when there is a question about who first conceived an invention. An affidavit may be used as supporting evidence; however, it is not a strict requirement if the petitioner can provide sufficient proof without it.

Sufficient proof can include detailed documentation showing a chain of invention or communication that aligns with the claims of derivation. This means that, in situations where the evidence presented is strong enough to support the claims without supplementary affidavits, it is deemed acceptable to proceed without them. Therefore, while affidavits can bolster a case, they are not intrinsically required if the accompanying proof meets the necessary standards to establish the claims regarding communication and authorization.

This flexibility encourages applicants to focus on the quality of evidence they present rather than strictly adhering to formal affidavit submission. Understandably, submission requirements can be a point of focus in legal proceedings, but in the context of derivation proceedings, the strength of presented evidence takes precedence.