Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 20
practice through a successful experiment. This situation results in a simultaneous
conception and reduction to practice. See 3 D. Chisum, Patents §10.04[5] (1990).”
Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206,18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021
(Fed. Cir. 1991). In those instances, “the event of reduction to practice in effect provides
the only evidence to corroborate conception of the invention,” Burroughs v. Wellcome
Co., 40 F.3d at 1228, 32 USPQ2d at 1920.
Davie argues that it simultaneously conceived and reduced to practice the
invention of the count prior to June 26, 1986. In doing so, Davie implicates the doctrine
of “simultaneous conception and reduction to practice.” However, as part of the
argument, Davie repeatedly states that the evidence shows that Davie conceived of the
invention prior to June 26, 1986. The following passage from Davie’s brief (p. 5) is
illustrative:
the a subunit and b subunit articles which teach every aspect of the invention are
independent evidence of conception of the respective subject matter. The articles
are evidence that the inventors were in possession of the invention.
Furthermore, these same articles are being relied upon as evidence of corroboration of
reduction to practice. Davie (brief, p. 18) states that it “rel[ies] on the two articles as
independently corroborating that the invention had been reduced to practice at least as
early as the dates the articles were received by the journal.”18
18 See also Davie brief, p. 12:
Davie is relying on the a subunit article as of its ‘received’ date as proof of conception and
corroboration of reduction to practice of the a subunit of factor XIII. The ‘received’ date of that article
is June 23, 1986, three days before Grundmann’s effective filing date [i.e., June 26, 1986]. Davie is
relying on the b subunit article as of its ‘received’ date as proof of conception and corroboration of
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007