Interference No. 104,101
Page 32
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1903-1904 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Mr. Cullinan’s
conclusions and the documents cited by Mr. Cullinan are not sufficiently corroborated to confirm
the formation of a compound having the postulated structure. Specifically, Mr. Cullinan’s
testimony and the documents provided by Lilly fail to demonstrate a corroborated actual
reduction to practice for an embodiment falling within the scope of the Count. Looking at all the
corroborating evidence as a whole, using a rule of reason analysis, we conclude that Lilly has
failed to sufficiently corroborate that LY 311583 had a structure falling within the scope of
Count 2. As such, Lilly has failed to meet its burden of proof. Priority of invention for Count 2,
the sole count in interference, is awarded against junior party Lilly.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007