What is the consequence if a respondent fails to establish non-derivation in a proceeding?

If a respondent fails to establish non-derivation in a proceeding, the outcome is that the proceeding concludes in favor of the petitioner. In patent law, particularly in derivation proceedings, the burden is on the respondent to demonstrate that they did not derive the claimed invention from the petitioner. If they cannot meet this burden of proof, it effectively supports the petitioner’s claims, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the rights associated with the patent.

This conclusion typically validates the petitioner’s assertion that they are the original inventor or rightful owner of the invention, reinforcing the importance of establishing non-derivation in such cases. In contrast, other options would not accurately reflect the procedural outcomes or implications of failing to prove non-derivation, as they suggest broader or incorrect consequences that do not align with standard practice in patent law proceedings.