Interference 102,413 Page 21
Pitha v. Muller
his laboratory and the work is corroborated by the testimony
of Dr. Czajkowska:33
Dr. W. Ciesielski did not testify during the Testimony
Period of the present interference, since he could not
be located despite attempts by Dr. Pitha to contact
him in Eastern Europe. It is submitted that Pitha is
entitled to rely on Dr. W. Ciesielski’s laboratory
notebook as evidence of the research work he conducted
in Dr. Pitha’s laboratory, since his work was
carefully supervised by Dr. Pitha and was corroborated
by the testimony of Dr. Czajkowska. See Holmwood v.
Sugavanam, 20 USPQ2d 1712, 1714-1715 (Fed. Cir.
1991).34
The facts of Holmwood, are different from the facts of
the present case because (1) the witness whose testimony is
presented, the supervisor of the laboratory assistants in
Holmwood, Dr. Zeck, was not a named inventor; (2) the record
made clear that the testing performed was said to be standard
within the industry and known to the declarant. Holmwood, 20
USPQ2d at 1714. Dr. Czajkowska’s testimony is presented to
corroborate the testimony of Dr. Pitha regarding the contents
of Dr. Ciesielski’s laboratory notebook. Pitha has not
directed us to testimony by Dr. Czajkowska that states she
supervised the work of Dr. Ciesielski or assisted in the
performance of the experiments appearing in Dr. Ciesielski’s
33PB page 13, footnote 6.
34PB page 13, footnote 6.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007