The reasonable diligence standard "balances the interest in
rewarding and encouraging invention with the public's interest in
the earliest possible disclosure of innovation," Griffith V.
Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624, 626, 2 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Here, Anderson has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that it was reasonably diligent such as to provide the public
with the earliest possible disclosure of its invention. Where
the first to conceive has failed to demonstrate that it was
reasonably diligent during the critical period, there is no
reason, or justification, to allow it to prevail over another who
is the second to conceive but who has made prompt disclosure by
the filing of a patent application.
For all of the above reasons, Anderson has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
it was prior to either Snitzer or Hill. Accordingly, judgment
against Anderson is now appropriate.
Hill's case on priorit
Actual Reduction to Practice
In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the
inventor must prove that: (1) an embodiment was constructed or a
process was performed that met all the limitations of the
interference count; and (2) that the invention would work for its
intended purpose. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097, 53 USPQ2d
1696, 1698 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also UMC Elecs. Co. v. United
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007