Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Kastenhofer patents bear U.S. Patent Nos. 5,843,032 (“the ‘032 patent”), 5,961,765 (“the

‘765 patent”), 6,027,477 (“the ‘477 patent”), and 6,471,673 (“the ‘673 patent”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 02-00790 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

On February 23, 2007, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment on priority. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court

hereby DENIES defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Scimed Life Systems,

Inc. and Schneider (Europe) GmbH (collectively “BSC”) brought suit against defendants Johnson &

Johnson and Cordis Corporation (collectively “Cordis”) for infringement of six patents. The first four

patents were invented at Schneider (Europe) by Gerhard Kastenhofer and are directed to a bilayered

catheter tube design for balloon angioplasty catheters (collectively, the "Kastenhofer patents").1

 The

remaining two patents were invented at Schneider (USA) by Michael Forman and are directed to laser

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Forman patents bear U.S. Patent Nos. 5,267,959 (“the ‘959 patent”) and 5,501,759 (“the

‘759 patent”).

3

The Fontirroche patents bear U.S. Patent Nos. 5,538,510 (“the ‘510 patent”), 5,820,594 (“the

‘594 patent”), and 5,824,173 (“the ‘173 patent”).

4

The Court found an interference between claim 7 of the ‘594 patent and claim 9 of the ‘032

patent, claim 10 of the ‘477 patent, and claim 7 of the ‘673 patent.

2

bonding of balloons to angioplasty catheter tubes (collectively, the “Forman patents”).2

 Defendants

counterclaimed that plaintiffs are infringing three Cordis-owned U.S. patents invented by Carlos

Fontirroche and Jason Querns (collectively, the "Fontirroche patents"), and that the Fontirroche patents

and Kastenhofer patents interfered with each other.3

 As with the Kastenhofer patents, the Fontirroche

patents are directed to a bilayered catheter tube design for balloon angioplasty catheters.

The Court issued a Claim Construction Order on May 10, 2004. In August 2004, BSC moved

for a judgment of non-interference between the Kastenhofer patents and the Fontirroche patents. Cordis

responded with its own motion for a declaration of an interference. On February 22, 2005, the Court

issued an order finding an interference between the Fontirroche ‘594 patent and three of the Kastenhofer

patents.4 Specifically at issue was the term “bonded” in claim 7 of the ‘594 patent. BSC argued that

the term should be limited to chemical bonding, while Cordis argued that the term encompassed other

types of bonding, such as physical bonding. The Court agreed with Cordis, concluding that the term

“bonded” in claim 7 of the ‘594 patent encompassed more than just chemical bonding, and therefore

found that an interference existed.

The Court held a bench trial between December 5 and December 8, 2005 to decide which patent

had the earliest priority date in relation to the interference-in-fact. In light of testimony presented at the

trial, BSC requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s construction of the term

“bonding” and “bonded” in the ‘594 patent. The Court granted leave, and subsequently granted BSC’s

motion for reconsideration. The Court concluded that the term "bonded" in claim 7 of the '594 patent

encompassed only chemical bonding. As a result, the Court reversed its prior finding, and held that

there was no interference-in-fact between the ‘594 patent and the Kastenhofer product patents.

In the instant motion, Cordis seeks partial summary judgment on its claim that that the invention

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

embodied in Fontirroche ‘594 patent is prior art to the asserted claims of the Kastenhofer patents. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary adjudication is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c).

In a motion for summary judgment, “[if] the moving party for summary judgment meets its

initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden of production then shifts so

that the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 317

(1986). In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party. See T.W. Electric, 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986)); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509

(9th Cir. 1991). The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues

of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th

Cir. 1979).

Patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Patent invalidity must be proven by clear

and convincing evidence. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed.

Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987). A patent can be invalidated through the doctrines of

anticipation or obviousness. In order for an invention to anticipate or render obvious a patent, the

invention must have temporal priority over said patent. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103.

DISCUSSION

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

At issue are claims 3, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of the ‘032 patent; claims 4 and 10 of the ‘477 patent;

claims 1-8 of the ‘765 patent; and claims 1-7 of the ‘673 patent.

6

35 U.S.C. 102(g) provides that:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . before such person’s invention thereof,

the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed,

or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall

be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the

invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to

reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

7

For instance, priority becomes important if Cordis argues that the Kastenhofer claims were

anticipated or rendered obvious by the’594 invention. 

8

A constructive reduction to practice occurs when a patent application is filed.

4

Cordis seeks partial summary judgment to establish that the invention embodied in its ‘594

patent (“the ‘594 invention”) is prior art to the asserted claims of the Kastenhofer patents5

 under 35

U.S.C. § 102(g).6

 The issue of priority bears on the overarching issue of patent validity.7 Mot. at 1. 

An inventor can establish that she was first to invent under section 102(g) if she demonstrates

that “she was the first to reduce the invention to practice.” Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 254 F.3d

1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If the inventor is second to reduce to practice, she can still establish

priority if she can show “that she was the first to conceive of the invention and then, prior to the other

party’s conception, exercised reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice.” Id. Cordis

concedes that the inventors of the claims in the Kastenhofer patents, Christine Samuelson Byam

(“Byam”) and Gerhard Kastenhofer (“Kastenhofer”), conceived of their inventions prior to the

conception of the ‘594 invention. Mot. at 2. Cordis contends, however, that the reduction to practice

(either actual or constructive8

) of the ‘594 invention was prior to that of either Byam or Kastenhofer’s

inventions. Id. at 2-3. Furthermore, Cordis claims that neither Byam nor Kastenhofer was sufficiently

diligent from a time just prior to the ‘594 date of conception to the time of the BSC inventors’ reduction

to practice. Id. 

I. Reduction to practice of the ‘594 invention

Cordis’s first step in proving priority is to establish a reduction to practice date for the ‘594

invention. Cordis contends that it reduced the ‘594 invention to practice on September 14, 1993. Reply

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

at 12-13. BSC responds that Cordis has not made the requisite showing to establish this date for an

actual reduction to practice, and therefore Cordis’s applicable reduction to practice date should be the

filing date, January 31, 1994. Opp. at 5-7.

Actual reduction to practice occurs when the inventor constructs a product or performs a process

that meets all the elements of the patent claim. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir.

2000). The inventor must also demonstrate the capacity of the invention to achieve its intended purpose.

Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Cordis first points to BSC’s concession at the interference trial that Cordis had actually reduced

to practice on September 14, 1993 as evidence of that fact. Reply at 12. BSC correctly responds that

contrary to the present situation, the interference proceedings were premised on a claim construction

that did not require a chemical bond between the inner and outer layers of the inner tube. Opp. at 6.

Since the interference proceedings, the applicable claim construction of the ‘594 patent has changed to

include the requirement of a chemical bond. The Court therefore finds BSC’s interference trial

concession to be insufficient to establish the actual reduction to practice date of the ‘594 invention.

Cordis next argues that on September 14, 1993 it conducted “extensive tests” on a catheter that

embodied the ‘594 invention. Reply at 12. Cordis claims that these tests yielded “successful results”

sufficient to establish that the Fontirroche invention would work for its intended purpose. Id. Cordis

further maintains that the catheter used in the tests contained a chemical bond between the inner and

outer layers of the inner tube. Id. at 12-13.

The Court finds Cordis has presented clear and convincing, undisputed evidence that the ‘594

invention was actually reduced to practice on September 14, 1993. Cordis has submitted documentation

of the successful test results of a catheter embodying the ‘594 invention, in addition to deposition

testimony demonstrating that the tested catheter contained a chemical bond. See Span. Decl., Exs. S,

T. This showing is sufficient to shift the burden to BSC to show a genuine factual dispute. See Sweats

Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1987). BSC has failed to put

forward evidence sufficient to create such a dispute, instead making conclusory statements about the

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

BSC argues that since Cordis’s evidence fails to demonstrate the “formation, existence, testing,

evaluation, or performance” of the chemical bond between the inner and outer layers of the inner

catheter tube, it is insufficient. Opp. at 6-7. Such conclusory statements regarding the moving party’s

evidence are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc., 594 F.2d at 738. 

10Cordis does not deny that BSC satisfied this requirement in January 1992. Opp. at 8. 

6

sufficiency of Cordis’s showing.9

 Opp. at 6. As such, the Court finds that Cordis’s reduction to practice

date for the ‘594 invention is September 14, 1993. 

II. Reduction to practice of the Kastenhofer patents

Having established its own reduction to practice date, to claim priority Cordis must next show

that this date is earlier than the reduction to practice date of the Kastenhofer patents. Cordis argues that

no reasonable juror could find that the claims invented by Byam and Kastenhofer were actually reduced

to practice before the ‘594 claims. Mot. at 6. Cordis maintains that the applicable reduction to practice

date for the Kastenhofer patents should be the patents’ filing date, September 20, 1994. Id. 

 

A. Byam claims

To prove that its reduction to practice date is before BSC’s, Cordis seeks to show that Byam, the

inventor of a number of claims in the Kastenhofer patents, failed to actually reduce her invention to

practice. According to Cordis, Byam failed to actually reduce to practice because of insufficient

experimentation and appreciation of her invention. Mot. at 7-13. 

1. Experimentation 

As discussed, in order to establish actual reduction to practice, the inventor must have 1)

“constructed an embodiment . . . that met all limitations of the claim,”10 and 2) “determined that the

invention would work for its intended purpose.” Slip Track Sys. Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 304 F.3d 1256,

1265 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Complex inventions may require testing to show that they work for their

intended purpose. See Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062. The success of testing is measured in terms of what

purpose the inventor intended. Knapp v. Anderson, 477 F.2d 588, 590 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Courts are

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11Consequences of delamination include acute heart attacks and other “serious risk[s] for the

patient.” Mot. at 8. 

7

guided by a “common sense approach” to judging the sufficiency of the testing. Id. at 1061. Reduction

to practice does not require that the invention, when tested, be in a commercially viable stage of

development. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach. Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 838 (Fed. Cir.

1984). Testing need not show utility beyond a possibility of failure, but simply beyond a probability

of failure. Scott, 34 F.3d at 1652.

Cordis alleges that Byam’s experiments failed to show that her invention worked for its intended

purpose. Mot. at 7. This purpose, says Cordis, is to be suitable for “use in a coronary angioplasty

procedure.” Mot. at 8:5-6. Cordis points to three sets of tests that it claims show that Byam’s invention

was not suitable for such a use. The tests, performed by BSC’s “Capture Team” member William

Clemens, resulted in the catheters “delaminating” over 60% of the time. Id. at 9-11. According to

Cordis, a catheter is not suitable for use in a coronary angioplasty procedure if it delaminates during

use.11 Id. 

BSC counters that the intended purpose of the Kasthofer patents is not use in a coronary

angioplasty procedure, but rather “providing a catheter with a low-friction inner tube that was capable

of being bonded to a catheter balloon.” Opp. at 9. BSC argues that it performed several tests that

showed the catheters to be both flexible and low in friction. Id. BSC also points out the presence of

many tests that did not result in delamination as evidence that the Byan invention worked for its

intended purpose. Id. at 9, 13-15.

As a preliminary matter, the Court does not accept Cordis’s interpretation of the intended

purpose of the Byam invention. According to the text of the Kastenhofer patents, the intended purpose

of the invention “is to present an interventional low profile balloon catheter that can be moved into

tortuous vessels with a guidewire inside the catheter without the risk of the guidewire being captured

or clogging in the catheter.” Spanbauer Decl., Exs. F, G, H. The Court is bound by the inventor’s

purpose as enunciated in the patent. See Knapp, 477 F.2d at 590. Consequently, even if Cordis could

show that delamination occurred in a plurality of experiments, it would still need to prove that

delamination frustrated the invention’s purpose as articulated in the patent. Cordis has failed to do so.

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12These particular test conditions involved higher-than-normal pressures and the application of

forces to the catheter’s inner layer. Opp. at 13.

8

Further, material questions of fact remain as to the extent of delamination in the experiments.

Cordis focuses on the three sets of experiments conducted by William Clements. Mot. at 9-11. Out of

13 total experiments, 8 catheters delaminated. Id. Had these been the only tests, they might not have

met the “beyond a probability of failure” standard enunciated in Scott. See 34 F.3d at 1062. However,

BSC points to other tests that saw relatively little delamination. Opp. at 13-15 (in flexibility testing, 34

out of 40 samples demonstrated no sign of delamination; in three of four crush tests under extreme

conditions,12 no delamination occurred). Cordis cites no authority for its claim that as a matter of law,

the “unpredictable nature of the delamination” should result in a finding of no reduction to practice. See

Reply at 6. 

It is clear that the Byam invention was not ready for use in a commercial setting in 1992. Byam

herself stated that “a balloon catheter with a delaminated inner member would not be something you

would want to put into a patient.” Spanbauer Decl., Ex. N. However, reduction to practice does not

require that the invention be ready for commercial sale. See Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062. 

The Court finds Cordis has not presented clear and convincing, undisputed evidence that

Byam’s experiments were insufficient. Therefore, summary judgment for Cordis on this issue is

improper. 

2. Appreciation

Cordis also argues that it is undisputed that in January 1992, Byam did not believe that her

invention would work for its intended purpose, thus precluding actual reduction to practice. This

argument also fails.

Actual reduction to practice of an invention cannot occur unless the inventor appreciated the

operability of the embodiment. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 199, 238

(D. Del. 1999). As evidence of non-appreciation, Cordis points to Byam’s admission that “a balloon

catheter with a delaminated inner member would not be something you would want to put into a

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13In addition to refuting Cordis’s argument on actual reduction to practice, BSC argues that it

should be entitled to a priority date with respect to the Kastenhofer claims as of the October 27, 1993

filing of Kastenhofer’s European patent application. 

According to 35 U.S.C. § 119(a), an inventor can be granted priority in the U.S. as of the filing

date of her foreign patent application. See 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). In order for section 119 priority to apply,

the foreign patent application must be sought by the inventor, her legal representatives, or her assigns.

Id. This Court has already decided this issue. In its Senior Party Order, the Court held that because

9

patient.” Spanbauer Decl., Ex. N. According to Cordis, this statement is probative as to whether Byam

believed her catheter would work for its intended purpose. Mot. at 12.

This argument is tied to the notion that the intended purpose of the Byam invention is to be

suitable for use in a coronary angioplasty procedure. Mot. at 8. As discussed above, this premise is

incorrect. See supra at 9. While it seems that Byam did not think her invention was ready to be

commercially sold, there is ample evidence to suggest that she thought her invention worked for its

intended purpose. See Massa Decl., Ex. M. For example, Byam’s testimony at the interference trial

reads in part:

Q. When you received the results from Mr. Clemens, did you in your own mind come

to any conclusions as to whether you had proof of your concept? A. Yes, I believe – I

believe we had proven it. Q. In spite of the delamination? A. Yes. Some still worked.

Id. 

As further evidence of lack of appreciation, Cordis argues that while William Clemens’s testified

that he told Byam about the results of his experiments, he failed to testify as to her reaction. Id. at 13.

This argument also fails. The law of appreciation does not require that an inventor’s reaction be noted

when she is told of her invention’s test results. 

For the foregoing reasons, Cordis’s appreciation argument fails. Therefore, the Court finds

Cordis has not presented clear and convincing, undisputed evidence that the‘594 invention is entitled

to an earlier reduction to practice date than the Byam claims in the Kastenhofer patents.

B. Kastenhofer claims

Cordis also contends that Kastenhofer never actually reduced his invention to practice.

According to Cordis, Kastefhofer’s actual reduction to practice failed because the inventor insufficiently

shipped and tested his invention in the United States. Id. at 16.13

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Kastenhofer did not assign his interest in the application to Schneider (Europe)” before the European

filing was made, Kastenhofer is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date for his European patent

application. November 22, 2005 Order at 2:23-25. The Court relied on Cragg v. Martin, 2001 WL

1339890, *4-5 (B.P.A.I. 2001), which has since been confirmed by the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia. See Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15476, *18-19 (D. D.C. 2006) (“[i]n order for the foreign patent application to be filed on behalf of the

United States applicant, the person filing the foreign application must be an assignee or legal

representative at the time that the foreign application was filed” (emphasis in original)).

Because none of the facts that BSC presents to the Court address the dispositive issue of timely

assignment, the Court finds that as a matter of law, BSC is not entitled to the priority date of

Kastenhofer’s European patent application. 

14September 27, 1993 was 13 days after Cordis’s alleged actual reduction to practice. 

10

Cordis concedes that Kastenhofer reduced his invention to practice in Europe at some time prior

to Cordis’s filing of the ‘594 patent application. Opp. at 16. Cordis contends, however, that a

completed catheter embodying the Kastenhofer invention was not imported into and tested in the United

States before Cordis’s reduction to practice date, as required by law. Mot. at 15-17.

For inventions whose U.S. patent applications were filed before January 1, 1996, “only activity

within the United States can serve to establish priority.” Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243, 1246 n.2 (Fed.

Cir. 2002). Reduction to practice in the United States requires that “the invention be embodied in

tangible form in the United States, not simply reported.” Id. at 1247.

The Court finds that issues of material fact exist as to the date the Kastenhofer invention first

appeared in the U.S. To meet its burden, Cordis offers the testimony of BSC’s technical expert Curtis

Frank, who stated that as far as he knew, no completed invention was shipped to the U.S. in 1993 or

1994. Spanbauer Decl., Ex. M. In rebuttal, BSC argues that Dr. Frank’s testimony simply reveals a lack

of knowledge on an issue about which he had no reason to know. Opp. at 18. BSC further maintains

that “Asuka” catheters, which embodied the invention described in the Kastenhofer patents, were

imported into the U.S. sometime before September 27, 1993.14 Id. at 17. As evidence, BSC has

produced a letter dated September 27, 1993 from the NamSA testing laboratory in Northwood, OH,

requesting that BSC ship “15 additional samples of your Asuka OTW PTCA Balloon Dilatation

Catheter” to the United States. Massa Decl., Ex. K (emphasis added). While Cordis is correct that BSC

has failed to offer proof of when or if samples were actually shipped prior to September 27, 1993, the

evidence presented is sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact. 

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

Cordis also argues that the Court should require BSC to have tested the Kastenhofer invention

in the United States in order to find an actual reduction to practice. Reply at 9. Cordis cites no authority

that stands for this proposition. Both of the cases cited by Cordis, Scott, 281 F.3d at 1247, and Shurie

v. Richmond, 699 F.2d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1983), involved process patents and are therefore irrelevant

to the instant matter. By definition, processes must be performed in the United States to be actually

reduced to practice. See Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 U.S. 368, 383 (1928) (“a

process is reduced to practice when it is successfully performed”). Both cases turned not on whether

the processes were tested in the United States, but rather whether the processes were performed in the

United States. See Scott, 281 F.3d at 1247; Shurie, 699 F.2d at1158. Cordis claims that “even though

testing of the Scott invention had already been successfully completed in the U.K., the Federal Circuit

said that the inventor had to ‘repeat it’ in the United States in order for there to be a reduction to practice

under U.S. law.” Reply at 10:9-11 (citing 281 F.3d at 1247). Cordis misconstrues the Federal Circuit’s

opinion. The “it” to which the Federal Circuit referred was the process, not the testing. 281 F.3d at

1247. 

The law does not require the Kastenhofer invention to have been tested in the United States in

order to for it to have been sufficiently reduced to practice. Cordis has failed to present clear and

convincing, undisputed evidence that the Kastenhofer invention was not present in the United States

before Cordis’s actual reduction to practice. Therefore, summary judgment for Cordis on this issue is

improper.

III. Diligence

Since the Court has already denied summary judgment on the reduction to practice issue, the

diligence issue is moot. However, in order to narrow the issues for trial, the Court will respond to

Cordis’s argument with respect to diligence.

The second to reduce to practice can still be granted priority if she can prove that “she was the

first to conceive of the invention and then, prior to the other party’s conception, exercised reasonable

diligence in reducing the invention to practice.” Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell

Oil Co., 308 F.3d 1167, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Federal Circuit defines “reasonable diligence” as

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15While Cordis may later argue for an earlier date of conception for the ‘594 invention, Cordis

recognizes that all reasonable inferences must be drawn against it in a summary judgment motion. Mot.

at 13-14. 

12

continuous activity toward reduction to practice so that the invention’s conception and reduction to

practice are substantially one continuous act. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed.

Cir. 1996). The party chargeable with diligence must account for the entire period during which

diligence is required, although “there need not necessarily be evidence of activity on every single day

if a satisfactory explanation is evidenced.” Monsanto Cp. v. Mycogen Plant Sci. Inc., 26 F.3d 1356,

1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 921 (C.C.P.A. 1966). 

A. Kastenhofer claims 

In assessing diligence, only activity within the United States can be considered. See Scott, 281

F.3d at 1245-1246 (junior party must show “diligence in the United States” to the filing date).

While Kastenhofer might have worked diligently in Europe, Cordis has presented two periods

of inactivity that preclude a finding of reasonable diligence in the United States. The first period of

inactivity occurred during the 3-1/2 month period between mid-May 1993 and August 1993. Reply at

11. The second period of inactivity occurred for the 11 months between October 1993 and September

1994. Id. The evidence of this activity is undisputed by BSC. 

Cordis has sufficiently presented clear and convincing, undisputed evidence that Kastenhofer

did not act with diligence in the United States “during the entire critical period.” 261 F.3d at 1369.

Therefore, summary judgment on this issue is proper. 

B. Byam claims

Cordis has conceded that with all reasonable inferences drawn against it, Byam conceived of her

claims before the Cordis inventors conceived of the ‘594 invention on November 19, 1992.15 Mot. at

13. Given that premise, if BSC had a later reduction to practice date than Cordis, then BSC would have

to show that Byam acted with reasonable diligence between November 18, 1992 and the Kastenhofer

filing date of September 20, 1994 in order to establish priority. BSC argues that because Byam’s claims

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

were transferred to Kastenhofer, diligence can be shown through him.

 The Court has already found that Kastenhofer’s activities were insufficient to establish

diligence. See supra, at 12. Therefore, BSC cannot prove Byam’s diligence through Kastenhofer’s

actions. As for Byam’s actions, Byam admitted at the interference trial that she made no entries in her

lab book that related to her invention from November 1992 to September 1994. Spanbauer Decl., Ex.

N. As a matter of law, such a prolonged period of inactivity does not constitute reasonable diligence.

See Fleming v. Bosch and Pollman, 181 U.S.P.Q. 761, 764 (B.P.A.I. 1973). The Court therefore finds

that neither Byam nor Kastenhofer “exercised reasonable diligence in reducing the invention[s] to

practice.” Union Carbide, 308 F.3d at 1189. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES Cordis’s motion

for partial summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 496 Filed 03/14/07 Page 13 of 13