594-595, 44 USPQ2d at 1615. Whether a practical utility has
been established for a novel compound is a question of fact.
Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d at 1564, 39 USPQ2d at 1899.
Huang argues that neither Dr. Huang nor Dr. Reitz needed
to be aware of the test results obtained by Monsanto employees
Koboldt, Veenhuizen, or Anderson for a reduction to practice
(Paper 51 at 20). Huang argues that the testing of the
Monsanto employees inures to the benefit of Dr. Huang and Dr.
Reitz. According to Huang, each of the tested compounds was
reduced to practice as of the earliest date of successful
testing for anti-inflammatory activity (Paper 46 at 23).
Inurement involves a claim that, as a matter of law, the
acts of another accrue to the inventor for the purposes of
establishing a reduction to practice. Cooper v. Goldfarb,
154 F.3d at 1331, 47 USPQ2d at 1904-05. A non-inventor's
recognition of the utility of an invention can inure to the
benefit of the inventor if it can be established that:
(1) the inventor conceived of the invention,
(2) the inventor had an expectation that the embodiment
tested would work for the intended purpose of the invention,
and
(3) the inventor submitted the embodiment for testing
for the intended purpose of the invention. Genentech, Inc. v.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007