Interference No. 104,101
Page 25
confirms the structure of Mr. Cullinan’s reaction product. (Id.). Indeed, Cameron questions how
Lilly, and more particularly Mr. Cullinan, confirmed that Mr. Cullinan produced the compound
identified as Lilly 311583. (Id.)
An inventor's testimonial assertions of inventive facts must be corroborated by
independent evidence. As stated by the Federal Circuit:
This court applies a “rule of reason” analysis to determine sufficient
corroboration. In applying the “rule of reason” test, this court examines “all
pertinent evidence” to determine the credibility of the “inventor's story.” This
“rule of reason” analysis does not alter the requirement of corroboration for an
inventor's testimony. The inventive facts must not rest alone on testimonial
evidence from the inventor himself. As stated in Hahn, 892 F.2d at 1032, “[t]he
inventor ... must provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his
own statements and documents.”
Brown v. Barbacid , 276 F.3d at 1335, 61 USPQ2d at 1240 (citations omitted).
According to Lilly, corroboration of the actual reduction to practice is provided by the
following:3
1. Documentary evidence, for example, a corresponding notebook page, a request for
physical chemistry analysis and/or a request for a Lilly serial number.
2. Testimonial evidence of Clifford Paicely
3. Testimonial evidence of Susan M. Sharples
4. Testimonial evidence of Mr. F. William Bell
5. Testimonial evidence of Mr. David E. Magee
(Lilly Reply Brief at Final Hearing, Paper No. 205, pp. 8-9). The sufficiency of Lilly’s alleged
corroborative evidence is discussed below.
3Lilly also identified the testimony of Mr. Bennie Foster (LX 1051) and Mr. Robert W.
Brickley (LX 1157). Their testimony does not specifically relate to the compound identified as
LY 311583 for which Lilly has produced evidence of utility.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007