Oka v. Youssefyeh case brief summary
849 F.2d 581 (1988)
CASE FACTS
The junior party invented or conceived of a 5-indanyl compound, which presumably had market value on February 27, 1980. The junior party directed a chemist to prepare the compound in October 1980. The compound was not, however, successfully prepared until December 1980. The senior party's filing date for the same compound was October 31, 1980. In a patent interference count the patent agency awarded priority invention to the junior party, finding that its date of conception was October 10, 1980.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the award of the priority invention to the junior party.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
849 F.2d 581 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The Patent and Trademark Office Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences awarded priority invention to
appellee junior party over appellant senior party, who relied upon
the junior party's Japanese filing date under 35 U.S.C.S. §
119. The senior party appealed.CASE FACTS
The junior party invented or conceived of a 5-indanyl compound, which presumably had market value on February 27, 1980. The junior party directed a chemist to prepare the compound in October 1980. The compound was not, however, successfully prepared until December 1980. The senior party's filing date for the same compound was October 31, 1980. In a patent interference count the patent agency awarded priority invention to the junior party, finding that its date of conception was October 10, 1980.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed that award because the finding that the conception date was October 10, 1980 was clearly erroneous.
- The court found that because there was a senior party involved, the junior party was required to have established that its idea had been reduced to practice before the senior party's' filing date, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(g).
- Because the junior party did not prove that its idea had been reduced to practice until December 1980, after the senior party's filing date, it was not entitled to an award of priority invention.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the award of the priority invention to the junior party.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment