Burden Of Proof In Patent Interference

27 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Myers v. Stanford I. Feigelman and Eugene Aristoff
  455 F.2d 596· C.C.P.A.· 1972-02-24 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the junior party met the burden of proof for conception and reduction to practice, and that the board erred in its findings regarding corroboration and evidence sufficiency.
• Crome v. Henton Morrogh
  239 F.2d 390· C.C.P.A.· 1956-11-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Crome application did not sufficiently disclose the limitations required by the interference counts, nor was the claimed subject matter shown to be inherent in the disclosure with the required certainty.
• Horwath v. Chin K. LEE
  564 F.2d 948· C.C.P.A.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the Board of Patent Interferences' award of priority to Long, finding that Horwath suppressed or concealed the invention despite having reduced it to practice earlier.
• Snitzer v. Etzel
  531 F.2d 1062· C.C.P.A.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 17×
  The senior party-appellant, who copied claims from a patent, failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their disclosure supported the counts or was enabling.
• Weil v. Fritz
  572 F.2d 856· C.C.P.A.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the best mode disclosure requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is ancillary to priority when a party seeks the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120, and thus is within the Board of Patent Interferences' jurisdiction.
• Prutton v. Fuller
  230 F.2d 459· C.C.P.A.· 1956-02-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Prutton's earlier applications did not sufficiently disclose the claimed invention, thus priority was correctly awarded to Fuller and Johnson.
• Engelhardt v. Judd
  369 F.2d 408· C.C.P.A.· 1966-12-15 ·cited 12×
  An inventor's reference to human dosing in a specification does not preclude proving actual reduction to practice through successful utility testing on standard experimental animals, and a delay of over two years in filing an application after reduction to practice, when spurred
• Shindelar v. Adin Frank Holdeman
  628 F.2d 1337· C.C.P.A.· 1980-09-04 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the Board of Patent Interferences' decision, holding that Shindelar suppressed or concealed his invention by unreasonably delaying the filing of his patent application after actual reduction to practice.
• Berges v. Gottstein
  618 F.2d 771· C.C.P.A.· 1980-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence, viewed as a whole, sufficiently corroborates the inventor Berges' assertion of an actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the senior party's filing date.
• Rimbach v. Willem Lambertus Wanmaker and Cornelis Bakker
  362 F.2d 561· C.C.P.A.· 1966-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Rimbach's laboratory tests demonstrating fluorescence under ultraviolet light were sufficient to establish utility and reduction to practice, even without testing in a high-pressure mercury vapor lamp.
• Harder v. Hayward
  150 F.2d 256· C.C.P.A.· 1945-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the repeal of the renewal statute did not affect the practice of filing continuing applications after an original application's allowance but before its forfeiture, allowing the applicant to claim the earlier filing date.
• Kravig v. Henderson
  362 F.2d 1015· C.C.P.A.· 1966-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence established reduction to practice for counts 1 and 2, but not for counts 3 and 6, as the required ribbon roll support shaft was not proven to be part of the reduced-to-practice device.
• Schur v. Muller
  372 F.2d 546· C.C.P.A.· 1967-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate conception or reduction to practice of the claimed invention prior to the senior party's filing date, and thus priority was correctly awarded.
• Seeley v. Rennick
  314 F.2d 577· C.C.P.A.· 1963-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the junior party Seeley failed to meet his burden of proving actual reduction to practice by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Holmes v. Kelly
  586 F.2d 234· C.C.P.A.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the junior party (Holmes) failed to demonstrate clear and unambiguous support in his specification for the limitations of the patent counts he copied, specifically the step of applying a layer to a substrate.
• Tomecek v. Stimpson
  513 F.2d 614· C.C.P.A.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Board of Patent Interferences' decision awarding priority of invention to the junior party Stimpson, finding Stimpson met his burden of proof for reduction to practice and Tomecek failed to establish prior conception or reduction to practice.
• Rodin v. Spalding
  297 F.2d 256· C.C.P.A.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the junior party failed to provide corroborated testimony to overcome the senior party's filing date or prove the senior party's disclosure inoperative. The court also found the senior party's amended claims supported by the original disclosure.
• Cislak v. Wagner
  215 F.2d 275· C.C.P.A.· 1954-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish an earlier conception or reduction to practice than the appellee, and affirmed the Board of Interference Examiners' decision awarding priority to the appellee.
• Holister v. Maynard
  129 F.2d 877· C.C.P.A.· 1942-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Board of Interference Examiners did not err in awarding priority of invention to the appellee, as the evidence sufficiently established his earlier conception and diligence.
• Davis v. Burrows
  492 F.2d 1405· C.C.P.A.· 1974-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences correctly determined that the appellees' British I application supports the count, thereby awarding priority to the appellees.
• Hilding Olof Vidar Bergstrom v. Tomlinson
  220 F.2d 766· C.C.P.A.· 1955-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Swedish applications sufficiently disclosed the invention to entitle appellants to their filing dates for constructive reduction to practice, and thus the motion to shift the burden of proof should have been granted.
• Cusano v. Decepoli
  214 F.2d 134· C.C.P.A.· 1954-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the phrase 'in proximity to' in the patent count should be given its broadest interpretation, and that the appellee's shuffleboard weight construction met this requirement.
• Jorgensen v. Shaff
  189 F.2d 264· C.C.P.A.· 1951-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient corroboration to establish priority of invention for the subject matter embraced in the counts.
• Reinecke v. Getz
  126 F.2d 498· C.C.P.A.· 1942-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient corroboration for his claimed invention date, and the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the senior party's established date of invention.
• Nenzell v. Hutson
  299 F.2d 864· C.C.P.A.· 1962-03-09
  The court held that a party dissatisfied with the Board of Patent Interferences' decision on priority has a right to appeal, even if priority was awarded 'pro forma'.
• Haas v. Baker
  126 F.2d 501· C.C.P.A.· 1942-03-23
  The court held that the appellee was entitled to make the claim (count) as written, as it was not limited to bleaching and was supported by the appellee's disclosure.
• In re Prutton
  120 F.2d 332· C.C.P.A.· 1941-06-09
  The court held that appellants were estopped from claiming the invention because they failed to properly assert their rights during a prior interference proceeding involving the same subject matter.