How does corroboration affect reduction to practice in patent law?
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
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 invention would work for its intended purpose.”
Corroboration is essential to prove these elements, especially when the reduction to practice occurred in the past. Here are key points about corroboration:
- It helps verify the inventor’s testimony about the reduction to practice.
- Corroborating evidence can include laboratory notebooks, witness testimonies, or physical exhibits.
- The level of corroboration required depends on the facts of each case.
- Lack of corroboration can result in the rejection of a claimed reduction to practice.
Inventors should maintain detailed records and seek witnesses to strengthen their claims of reduction to practice.