flyer that was distributed had the name of Performance Quality Saw Shops, Inc., which
is owned by the senior party, as well as SIMPLAR Co., which is owned by the junior
party. We note that even if Bernardy created the flyer as is argued by the junior party,
the creation of the flyer does not establish that the junior party reduced to practice the
blade depicted in the flyer.
Therefore, even though the evidence proves that the invention of the counts was
in existence as of March 12 to 14 of 1997, the evidence fails to identify, directly or by
implication, that the junior party reduced the invention to practice.
. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the evidence as a whole is not
of sufficient weight to establish reduction to practice by the junior party in 1994, 1996 or
1997. The evidenc6 fails to establish that any prototype that can be attributed to the
junior party alone included each element of the counts. Although, it has been
established that an embodiment of the counts was reduced to practice in March of 1997,
it has not been established that it is more probable than not that the junior party reduced
the inventions of the counts to practice in March of 1997.
H. Derivation
The junior party alleges that the senior party derived the invention from the junior
party. In order to establish derivation, the junior party must show (1 ) prior, complete
conception of the claimed subject mater and (2) communication of the complete
conception to the senior party. Cooper v Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1332, 47 USPQ2d
1896, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Price v. Symse , 988 F.2d 1187, 1190, 26 USPQ2d 1031,
-29-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007