delay. Nor does Geerts explain why the alleged reduction to practice caused a delay in the further
evaluation of the invention by the patent department. Lastly, even if it is assumed that the
experiment excused the delay as of September, 1991, Geerts has not provided an explanation for the
delay in processing of the patent ideas by the patent liaison from then until May of 1992. This
inactivity by the patent liaison persisted approximately eight months after the alleged September
1991 actual reduction to practice. Thus, the September 1991 experiment does not justify the lack
of progress in evaluating the invention.
3.
Notwithstanding the suppression or concealment, Geerts may be awarded priority if activity
on the invention was renewed and Geerts proceeded diligently towards filing an application from a
time before Sugano entered the field. Lutzker, 843 F.2d at, 1367, 6 USPQ2d at 1372; Paulik, 760
F.2d at 1272, 226 USPQ at 225. On this record, Sugano entered the field on the filing date of its
Japanese application, December 8, 1992.
a.
Geerts asserts that activity on the invention was renewed in June of 1992 when Drs. Geerts
and Hill are said to have actually reduced the invention to practice. Geerts Brief, pp. 136-38. They
testified that Dr. Hill formed ethylaluminoxane by reacting triethylaluminum with methylboronic
acid and that it was recorded in Dr. Hill’s lab notebook. GR 359-361, ¶¶ 17-21; GR 305, ¶ 369; GX
26, pp. 10-11. They further testified that they prepared Patent Idea Record reporting this work. GR
364, ¶ 29; GR 306, ¶ 371. The report is said to have subsequently been given Patent Idea Number
16876 by the Phillips patent department. GR 364, ¶ 29; GR 306, ¶ 371; GR 60-61, ¶ 15. A copy of
the form is of record as GX 27. GR 364, ¶ 29; GR 306, ¶ 371; GR 61, ¶ 15. Harold R. Deck testifies
that he read and signed the form on June 26, 1992. GR 60-61, ¶ 15.
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor's testimony must be
corroborated by independent evidence.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330, 47 USPQ2d
1896, 1903 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, a "rule of reason" analysis is applied to determine whether
an inventor's testimony regarding reduction to practice has been sufficiently corroborated. Cooper,
154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903. The rule of reason requires an evaluation of all pertinent
evidence when determining the credibility of an inventor's testimony. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007