exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing the invention to
practice. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097, 53 USPQ2d 1696,
1698 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, Anderson alleges an actual
reduction to practice date of 9 January 1993. That date,
however, is still subsequent to both Hill's and Snitzer's
effective filing dates.
Anderson may prevail if Anderson can establish that it was
the first to conceive the invention and that it exercised
reasonable diligence from a time prior to Hill's and Snitzer's
conception until its own reduction to practice. 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(g); 204 F.3d at 1097, 53 USPQ2d at 1698. Anderson seeks to
establish that it conceived prior to Hill's 8 September 1992
alleged date of conception" and that Anderson was reasonably
diligent from a time prior to 8 September 1992 until Anderson's
actual reduction to practice date of 9 January 1993.
Snitzer argues that Anderson has failed to prove conception
by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Anderson has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that it was diligent in reducing its
invention to practice, we have not and need not consider
Snitzer's arguments regarding conception. For purposes of this
11Although Snitzer alleges a prior date of conception of
July 22, 1992, Anderson in its brief argues that Snitzer has
failed to prove that date of conception. For the reasons
discussed infra, we agree that Snitzer has failed to demonstrate
a date of conception prior to 17 October 1992. Thus, Anderson
must demonstrate that it was diligent from just prior to 8
September 1992 until 9 January 1993.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007