Solomon V. Bhagavatula

31 Cited authorities

Price v. Symsek
988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 318 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 289 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception
Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 246 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"
Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 115 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination"
King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp.
767 F.2d 853 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 157 times
Finding it significant that purchaser could discern that it was the later-patented invention being offered for sale
Coleman v. Dines
754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 96 times 5 Legal Analyses
In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.
Scott v. Finney
34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 51 times 6 Legal Analyses
Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context
Kridl v. Mccormick
105 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 46 times
Stating that corroboration is "independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony"
Holmwood v. Sugavanam
948 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 33 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding prior reduction to practice in the United States based on domestic testing of a foreign fungicide, proof of which was established through oral testimony and test results
OKA v. YOUSSEFYEH
849 F.2d 581 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 27 times 6 Legal Analyses
In Oka, even under the preponderant evidence standard, the junior party could not prove prior invention by presenting a range of dates that primarily predated but overlapped by one day with the senior party's conception date.
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,031 times 1028 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Solomon V. Bhagavatula

31 Cited authorities

Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

Holding that an "absence of such a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination"

Finding it significant that purchaser could discern that it was the later-patented invention being offered for sale

In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context

Stating that corroboration is "independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony"

Finding prior reduction to practice in the United States based on domestic testing of a foreign fungicide, proof of which was established through oral testimony and test results

In Oka, even under the preponderant evidence standard, the junior party could not prove prior invention by presenting a range of dates that primarily predated but overlapped by one day with the senior party's conception date.

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"