While Furman indicated its belief that the stated inventorship is
correct, Furman stated that it believes it has a duty under
37 CFR § 1.56 to disclose the inventorship information. Party
Cheng expressed a concern that Furman may be attempting to
untimely supplement its priority case through the disclosure of the
information. However, party Furman agreed that the inventorsbip
information would be submitted for the limited purpose of
complying with its duty of disclosure and not as evidence in its
priority case.
20. In the Order it was stated that the inventorship information submitted by Furman could
not be relied upon to show priority of invention since it was not timely submitted.
(Paper 79 at 3).
21. Belleau did not file a motion to suppress any evidence relied upon by Furman to show
priority.
Dr. Furman's testimon
22. Many of the facts relied upon by Furman to establish priority are based on the
declaration testimony of inventor Dr. Phillip A. Furman. (Exh. 2049).
23. Dr. Furman's declaration testimony (Exh. 2049) appears to be among the evidence
directed to inventorship that Furman submitted pursuant to the Order (FF 19).
24ý In particular, Dr. Furman's testimony indicates that:
(A) He and co-inventor Dr. George R. Painter, III ("the Furman inventors") received
a sample of BCH-189 from BioChem Phanna in connection with licensing discussions in 1989.
(Exh. 2049 at ý 5).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007