Interference No. 103,352
exclusively upon the testimony of co-inventors Khokhar, Perez-
Soler and Lopez-Berestein together with documentary exhibits.9
Even though the senior party did not cross-examine any of
Khokhar's declarants and did not present any evidence of its own,
Khokhar must nevertheless provide adequate corroboration of the
inventors' testimony to establish a prima facie case for
priority. The need for corroboration of an inventor's testimony
to establish a prima facie case for priority is a fundamental and
well-established principle of interference practice. Rivise and
Caesar, Interference Law and Practice, Vol III, § 539 (Michie Co.
1947). Indeed, an inventor's testimony must be corroborated with
regard to all the essential elements of a case for priority.
The purpose of the rule requiring corroboration is to reduce
the potential for fraud and to establish, by proof that is
unlikely to have been fabricated or falsified, that the inventor
successfully reduced his invention to practice. Berry v. Webb,
412 F.2d 261, 162 USPQ 170 (CCPA 1969). The evidence necessary
for corroboration is determined by the rule of reason which
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007