Scott v. Finney case brief summary
34 F.3d 1058 (1994)
CASE FACTS
In a patent interference action, appellant attempted to show an actual reduction to practice before appellee's date of invention. The invention was a penile implant for men unable to obtain or maintain an erection. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences awarded priority in the interference to appellee. The board held that appellants did not show a reduction to practice before appellee's date of invention.
DISCUSSION
The decision was reversed and remanded, because the Board of Patent Appeals erroneously held that appellants were required to show human testing of the invention to demonstrate a reduction to practice.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
34 F.3d 1058 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants challenged a decision of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences in favor of appellee in a patent dispute.CASE FACTS
In a patent interference action, appellant attempted to show an actual reduction to practice before appellee's date of invention. The invention was a penile implant for men unable to obtain or maintain an erection. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences awarded priority in the interference to appellee. The board held that appellants did not show a reduction to practice before appellee's date of invention.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court found that the board erroneously suggested that a showing of reduction to practice required human testing in actual use circumstances for a period of time.
- The decision was reversed and remanded, because the board imposed an overly strict requirement for testing to show reduction to practice.
The decision was reversed and remanded, because the Board of Patent Appeals erroneously held that appellants were required to show human testing of the invention to demonstrate a reduction to practice.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment