Nonetheless, since Furman has not sufficiently shown a reduction to practice prior to
Belleau's constructive reduction to practice on 3 January 1991, we need not and do not determine
if Furman has shown that it conceived the invention of the counts prior to Belleau. More ver,
diligence is not an issue before us since Furman has not argued or otherwise shown that it was
diligent up until its constructive reduction to practice date of 2 May 1991.
2. Reduction to practice
a. The July and August activity
Furman relies upon the doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice to
establish that it reduced to practice an invention of the counts in July or August of 1990
(Paper 88 at 18). The doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice is somewhat
rare, but certainly not unknown, especially in unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biology.
Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1330, 58 USPQ2d 1030, 1041
(Fed. Cir. 2001). While Furman seems to be relying upon its conception to show a reduction to
practice, our understanding is that the doctrine applies in the rare instance when a reduction to
practice is required to establish conception. See e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharma. Co.,
927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 10 16, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 199 1).
Even if Furman has shown that its July and August activities establish conception, " we
determine that Furman has not shown an actual reduction to practice based on these activities. In
particular, Furman has not established that the Furman inventors had determined that BCli-l 89
worked for its intended purpose of treating HBV as of July or August of 2000.
15 As noted above, we have not decided if Furman has shown that it conceived the
invention of the counts prior to Belleau.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007