i.e., Dr. Huang. We have not been pointed to evidence
establishing that the other testing by Koboldt (i.e., the
testing of SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, and SC-
60668) was done at the explicit or implicit request of an
inventor. We have not been pointed to evidence establishing
that any of the testing by Veenhuizen (i.e., the testing of
SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, and SC-60668) or any
of the testing by Anderson (i.e., the testing of SC-60248) was
done at the explicit or implicit request of an inventor.
Since the evidence of record indicates that only Koboldt was
working, at least in part, at either the explicit or implicit
request of an inventor, i.e., Dr. Huang, only the work of
Koboldt may inure to the benefit of the inventors under
Genentech. Since the Koboldt testimony indicates that only
the testing of SC-58394 was requested by Dr. Huang, only the
testing of SC-58394 may inure to the inventors' benefit.
In reaching our decision, we assume--without deciding or
finding--that the research laboratory in which the activities
discussed above took place is probably a well-organized entity
which undertakes legitimate scientific research in an orderly
fashion. We further assume--without deciding or finding--that
the individuals employed strive to achieve meaningful research
goals consistent with the profit objectives of the company for
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007