Interference No. 104,745
conceive but second to reduce to practice, that party must demonstrate reasonable diligence
toward reduction to practice from a date just prior to the other party's conception to its reduction
to practice."); Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1368, 59 USPQ2d
1930, 1938 (Fed. Cir. 2001)("Having determined that the diligence issue was before the jury, we
now identify the period for which diligence must have been shown—the critical period.").
In view of the granting of Laiko's Motion 1 under 37 CFR § 1.634 to correct the
inventorship of the Laiko et al. involved patent by removing Dr. Alma L. Burlingame as an
inventor, the inventorship of the patent is now the same as Laiko's preliminary statement, which
names Victor V. Laiko as the sole inventor of the subject matter of the count. As Dr.
Burlingame is not identified as an inventor in Laiko's preliminary statement, whose accuracy in
this regard Bai does not dispute, Dr. Burlingame's testimony and documents can be relied on to
corroborate Dr. Laiko's testimony and documents. "The inventor . . . must provide independent
corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and documents." Cooper v. Goldfarb,
154 F.3d 1321, 1330, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d
1028, 1032-33, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989)); Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d
1236, 1239,
20 USPQ2d 1712, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 1991)("Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration.")
During the time period in question, Dr. Laiko worked at the University of California,
San Francisco ("UCSF") as a Post Doctorate Fellow in the UCSF Mass Spectrometry Facility,
which is associated with the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy.
- 37 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007