What is the “rule of reason” in determining conception in patent law?
What is the “rule of reason” in determining conception in patent law? The “rule of reason” is a principle applied by courts when evaluating evidence of conception in patent cases. According to MPEP 2138.04, “An inventor’s testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove conception unless it is corroborated, a rule that the courts have recognized…
Read MoreHow do courts weigh objective evidence against inventor testimony?
Courts typically give more weight to objective evidence than to inventor testimony when determining whether a use or sale was experimental. The MPEP 2133.03(e)(2) cites a recent case: “Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (The Federal Circuit relied on the objective…
Read MoreCan an inventor’s testimony alone prove conception in a patent case?
Can an inventor’s testimony alone prove conception in a patent case? While an inventor’s testimony is important, it is generally not sufficient on its own to prove conception in a patent case. The MPEP 2138.04 states: “An inventor’s testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove conception, as some form of corroboration is required.” This requirement…
Read MoreHow does corroboration affect reduction to practice in patent law?
Corroboration plays a crucial role in establishing reduction to practice in patent law. The MPEP 2138.05 states: “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) they constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the interference count; and (2) they determined that the…
Read More