Barton et al or Fischhoff et al v. Adang et al. - Page 61




          Interference 103,781                                                        
                    The precise language of the reduction to practice                 
               test states “[i]t is well-settled that conception and                  
               reduction to practice cannot be established nunc pro                   
               tunc.  There must be contemporaneous recognition and                   
               appreciation of the invention represented by the counts.”              
               Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401, 176 USPQ 519,                   
               521 (CCPA 1973)(emphasis added); see also Estee Lauder,                
               129 F.3d at 593, 44 USPQ2d at 1614 (summarizing past                   
               cases by stating “[t]hese cases trumpet, therefore, the                
               principle that a reduction to practice does not occur                  
               until the inventor has determined that the invention                   
               will work for its intended purpose”).                                  
                    The purpose of the invention was to produce a                     
               pesticidal protein toxin in plants through the higher                  
               expression of the Bt gene.  The record and the district                
               court’s opinion clearly show that Monsanto appreciated                 
               that the invention worked for this purpose.  Monsanto                  
               tested the plants resulting from their modified genes                  
               specifically looking for the presence of increased Bt                  
               protein.  See Mycogen, 61 F.Supp. 2d at 222.  Moreover,                
               scientists, upon learning of the test results indicating               
               that their gene caused increased Bt expression,                        
               immediately appreciated the significance of the results.               
               The analyst in charge of the testing testified that the                
               results “proved that we [Monsanto] had succeeded , that                
               the synthetic gene worked and worked exceptionally well                
               in plants.  Id. at 240 (alteration in original).                       
               Suffice it to say that the Federal Circuit found “a legally            
          sufficient evidentiary basis” for the Delaware District Court’s             
          conclusion that Monsanto (there, as here, Fischhoff and Perlak)             
          reduced the invention claimed in Mycogen’s U.S. Patent 5,567,600            
          to practice before September 9, 1988, specifically, “in early-              
          to mid-August 1988."  Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,             
          243 F.3d at 1311, 58 USPQ2d at 1045.                                        
               The Federal Circuit explained the relevance of its                     
          statements on review of the Delaware District Court’s findings of           
                                        -61-                                          





Page:  Previous  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007