Since Herman has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he conceived of at least counts 6,
7, 25, and 26, Herman's motion is denied based on this alternative ground.
Lack of corroboration of Herman's story
In addition to proving a prior conception of all 32 counts, Herman must provide an
explanation of why the inventorshipin the Barnes patent is incorrect. Even if we were to believe
that Herman is capable of providing truthfal information, the information that Herman has '
provided is insufficiently corroborated. For example, Herman explains that he was coerced into
adding Barnes to the NDI that was used to draft the Barnes patent application. However,
Herman's account of events are not corroborated. Ms. Johnson, who allegedly told Herman to
add Barnes to the NDI does not testify for Herman in support of its preliminary motion.
According to Herman, Fedorochko, the patent attorney that drafted the Barnes application, was
aware that Herman believed himself to be the sole inventor. Yet, Fedorochko does not testify in
support of Herman's preliminary motion. Herman's account of what he told Fedorochko and
what Fedorochko told Herman are uncorroborated statements made by an -inventor.
The e-mails having attachments that allegedly describe the invention are also insufficient
to establish that Herman alone conceived of the invention (ffs 27, 28, 31 and 32). The e-mails do
not establish that Herman alone conceived of the invention, since the e-mails do not describe the
elements of any of counts 1-32. Even if we were to assume that the c-mails include the
attachment that Herman describes (the IDD), Herman has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
"the attachment" or IDD describes the elements of at least counts 6, 7, 25 and 26 as previously
explained.
Still, there are other flaws with respect to Herman's story. Herman acknowledges that
23
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007