Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01424/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WALTER J. BERIONT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GTE LABORATORIES, INC., GTE SERVICE 

CORPORATION, GTE COMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION, ALFRED H. BELLOWS,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1424

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:00-cv-11145-RGS, 

Judge Richard G. Stearns.

______________________ 

Decided: February 4, 2015

______________________ 

WALTER J. BERIONT, Maynard, MA, pro se. 

MICHAEL E. JOFFRE, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, 

Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for defendantsappellees. Also represented by IGOR HELMAN, MELANIE L.

BOSTWICK. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2015
2 BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES

PER CURIAM. 

Walter J. Beriont (“Beriont”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts granting summary judgment that GTE 

Laboratories, Inc., GTE Service Corporation, and GTE 

Communications Corporation (collectively, “GTE”) have at 

all times been a joint owner of U.S. Patent 5,920,802 (the 

“’802 patent”). See Beriont v. GTE Labs., Inc., 

No. 00-11145-RGS, 2014 WL 585651 (D. Mass. Feb. 14, 

2014). Because Beriont failed to prove misjoinder of the 

’802 patent by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Beriont began working at GTE as an engineer in

1983. In 1996, Beriont conceived an invention relating to 

improved low frequency power distribution within a cable 

television network. Beriont disclosed this invention to 

Alfred Bellows (“Bellows”), a co-worker at GTE, who 

“constructed, evaluated, and tested” the invention. J.A. 

71. Beriont and Bellows together disclosed the invention 

to GTE in August 1996.

That same year, Beriont filed an unrelated defamation action in Massachusetts state court against a coworker and GTE. GTE later terminated Beriont’s employment, and Beriont added a wrongful termination 

claim to that action.

In June 1998, Beriont and Bellows jointly filed a patent application through GTE’s patent counsel. Beriont 

and Bellows both signed a Declaration and Power of 

Attorney for Patent Application that was submitted to the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by GTE. J.A. 131. 

Beriont declared that he was the “Second Joint Inventor” 

of the invention described in the application and that he 

appointed GTE attorneys to prosecute the application on 

his behalf. Id. Beriont refused to execute a formal assignment agreement. That application issued as the ’802 

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2015
BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES 3

patent, and is assigned on its face to GTE and lists Beriont and Bellows as co-inventors. See ’802 patent, [73], 

[75]. In November of 1998, while the ’802 application was 

pending, GTE filed a declaratory judgment action in 

Massachusetts state court seeking a declaration that GTE 

was the lawful owner of the patent, as well as specific 

performance ordering Beriont to assign any remaining 

interest in the patent to GTE.

Then in 2000, while the state court litigation was 

pending, Beriont filed the instant federal action in the 

District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking: 

(1) a declaratory judgment that he was the sole inventor 

of the ’802 patent; (2) the removal of Bellows as a coinventor and GTE as assignee; (3) a judgment that GTE 

breached a fiduciary duty owed to Beriont; and (4) a 

judgment of patent infringement against GTE. Beriont v. 

GTE Labs., Inc., No. 1:00-cv-11145-RGS, 2012 WL 

2449907, at *1 (D. Mass. June 27, 2012). The district 

court stayed the case pending the resolution of the state 

court suits. Id. at *2.

The two Massachusetts state court actions were consolidated, and Beriont and GTE reached a settlement 

agreement on June 13, 2005. The settlement required 

that: (1) GTE would pay Beriont $50,000; (2) GTE and 

Beriont would “agree that they shall be joint owners of 

the patent” in dispute; (3) the parties would “give each 

other mutual releases”; and (4) GTE would provide Beriont with a signed statement that his loss of employment 

did not call into question his “integrity, competence, or 

industry.” J.A. 135–37. Based on the settlement, the 

trial court entered a dismissal nisi in both actions, but 

when the parties failed to submit a formal settlement 

agreement, the state court judge dismissed both actions 

for failure to comply with the nisi order. J.A. 165.

In 2011, after resolution of the state court suits, the 

district court lifted the stay, and GTE moved for summary 

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2015
4 BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES

judgment on Beriont’s claims. Beriont, 2012 WL 2449907, 

at *2. The court concluded that the ’802 patent was

jointly owned by GTE (and its successor in interest, 

Verizon Laboratories) and Beriont; that the parties would 

comply with the agreed-upon terms of the settlement; and 

that the joint ownership of the ’802 patent absolved both 

parties of liability for any infringement after the date of 

the settlement. Id. at *3. The court also concluded that 

prior to the settlement date of June 13, 2005, GTE had at 

least “shop-rights” to use the ’802 patent and was therefore not liable for any infringement thereof. Id.

Beriont appealed to this court, and we affirmed the 

district court’s determination that GTE was not liable for 

infringement after June 13, 2005. Beriont v. GTE Labs., 

Inc., 535 F. App’x 919, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We vacated 

the judgment of noninfringement for the period preceding 

June 13, 2005, and remanded the case to the district court 

to address the “shop rights” doctrine and GTE’s pre-2005 

activities that fell outside the scope of “shop rights.” Id. 

We also vacated the court’s ruling with regard to Beriont’s 

claim of inventorship because we concluded that the 

district court failed to make explicit findings with respect 

to the inventorship claim. Id.

On remand, the district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of GTE, concluding that Beriont could 

not prevail on his claim of sole inventorship because “[a]ll 

evidence, even Beriont’s own testimony, establishes the 

contrary.” Beriont, 2014 WL 585651, at *3. The court 

thus held that there was no infringement by GTE prior to 

June 13, 2015 because its employee Bellows was a rightful co-inventor of the patent and it was undisputed that 

he had assigned his own interest to GTE before the ’802 

patent issued. Id. at *4–5.

Beriont again appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2015
BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES 5

DISCUSSION

We apply regional circuit law, here the law of the 

First Circuit, when reviewing a district court’s grant of a 

motion for summary judgment. Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. 

v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). The First Circuit “afford[s] de novo review to the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment.” Johnson v. 

Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, “there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Inventorship is a question of law, which we review 

without deference. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 

135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We review the 

district court’s underlying findings of fact for clear error. 

Id. Because the issuance of a patent creates a presumption that the named inventors are the true and only 

inventors, id., the burden of showing misjoinder or nonjoinder of inventors is a heavy one and must be proved by 

clear and convincing evidence, Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(citing Garrett Corp. v. United States, 422 F.2d 874, 880 

(Ct. Cl. 1970)). The moving party “must also show that 

the persons to be removed did not contribute to the invention of any of the allowed claims.” Univ. of Pittsburgh v. 

Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Beriont argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because witness credibility was 

central to the court’s determination and summary judgment is not the appropriate avenue for weighing credibility. Beriont also argues that Bellows could not have been 

an inventor because he did not have the knowledge or 

understanding to contribute to the conception of the 

invention of the ’802 patent. GTE responds that the court 

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/04/2015
6 BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES

properly granted summary judgment because Beriont 

offered no credible evidence that he is the sole inventor of 

the ’802 patent. Specifically, GTE argues that the only 

evidence offered by Beriont is the testimony of Beriont 

himself, and this alone is insufficient as a matter of law. 

According to GTE, all other evidence confirms Bellows’s 

status as a legitimate joint inventor.

We agree with GTE that the district court properly 

granted summary judgment because Beriont failed to 

prove misjoinder by clear and convincing evidence. The 

’802 patent lists both Bellows and Beriont as inventors, 

and the inventors named on an issued patent are presumed to be correct. Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460. Beriont 

was thus required to prove misjoinder by clear and convincing evidence, and he failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a material issue of fact. 

The only evidence that Beriont has offered to support 

his sole inventorship claim is his personal testimony that 

he disclosed the invention to Bellows and that Bellows 

constructed and tested the disclosed invention. However, 

Beriont’s own testimony is insufficient, as we have generally required that an inventor’s testimony regarding

conception of an invention be corroborated. Univ. of 

Pittsburgh, 573 F.3d at 1298. We have no way in this 

case to corroborate Beriont’s account of the events that led 

to the ’802 patent, and, as a result, it is not possible to 

make “a sound determination of the credibility of the 

inventor’s story.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 

(Fed. Cir. 1993). The court thus did not err in concluding 

that Beriont failed to raise a material issue of fact. We 

have considered Beriont’s remaining arguments and 

conclude that they are without merit.

CONCLUSION

Because it is undisputed that Bellows properly assigned his rights in the ’802 patent to GTE in 1998, GTE 

has been a co-owner of the patent since that time and 

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/04/2015
BERIONT v. GTE LABORATORIES 7

cannot be liable for infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 262 

(“[E]ach of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, 

offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the 

United States, or import the patented invention into the 

United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.”) The district court’s grant 

of summary judgment to GTE is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1424 Document: 32-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/04/2015