{"id":3476,"date":"2023-01-06T23:16:00","date_gmt":"2023-01-07T05:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3476"},"modified":"2023-02-19T18:33:35","modified_gmt":"2023-02-20T00:33:35","slug":"corroboration-of-reduction-to-practice-supported-under-the-rule-of-reason-supported-by-substantial-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3476","title":{"rendered":"Corroboration of Reduction to Practice Supported Under the Rule of Reason, Supported by Substantial Evidence."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Dionex Softron GmbH v Agilent Technologies, Inc., [2021-2372]<\/a> (January 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision awarding priority to Agilent in an interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the interference, the Board identified Dionex as the senior party and Agilent as the junior party, thereby requiring that Agilent prove priority by a preponderance of the evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its analysis, the Board applied the rule of reason and found that the testimony of Wolfgang Kretz, one of Agilent\u2019s two co-inventors, was sufficiently corroborated by
two of his co-workers, Manfred Berndt and Martin B\u00e4uerle, who had worked near Kretz during the relevant time. Berndt and B\u00e4uerle testified that Kretz successfully tested
a prototype encompassing all limitations of the count by June 1, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the foregoing, the Board entered judgment on priority for Agilent and against Dionex and refused Dionex\u2019s claims. Dionex timely appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the Board properly treated Agilent\u2019s specification as
the \u201coriginating specification\u201d for purposes of construing the disputed claim terms and evaluating the sufficiency of written description support for the claims. When a party
challenges written description support for an interference count or the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the Board did not err in concluding that Agilent\u2019s specification provided adequate written description support. Dionex\u2019s arguments on this point depend entirely on our adopting Dionex\u2019s proposed claim construction. In other words, Dionex contends there is not adequate written description support for its ordered steps construction of the claim, but we have rejected this proposed construction. Since the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board\u2019s claim construction, Dionex\u2019s written description arguments necessarily failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board did not err in awarding priority to Agilent. Substantial evidence supports the Board\u2019s findings that Agilent\u2019s actual reduction to practice was sufficiently corroborated
and occurred prior to Dionex\u2019s earliest conception date. The Board\u2019s finding of corroboration, under the rule of reason, is supported by substantial evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Dionex Softron GmbH v Agilent Technologies, Inc., [2021-2372] (January 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision awarding priority to Agilent in an interference. In the interference, the Board identified Dionex as the senior party and Agilent as … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3477,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3476\/revisions\/3477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}