Source: http://www.ptab.us/2016/03/ntp.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 22:13:31
Document Index: 205559146

Matched Legal Cases: ['arte 7954177', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', 'arte 6551358', 'arte 7947022']

PTAB.US: NTP
1764 Ex Parte Tatarka et al 13066118 - (D) RANGE 103 FERRELLS, PLLC KRYLOVA, IRINA
1616 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 11583419 - (D) ADAMS 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP KARPINSKI, LUKE E
1791 Ex Parte Stevens et al 12258219 - (D) DERRICK 112(2) 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE
3745 Ex Parte Truong et al 12833771 - (D) GUIJT 112(2)/102 FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN KRAFT, LOGAN M
3765 KRANOS IP CORPORATION Requester, Appellant v. RIDDELL, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent Ex Parte 7954177 et al 11/653,078 95002117 - (D) SONG 102 41.77 102 MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NOTARO, MICHALOS & ZACCARIA P.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original WORRELL JR, LARRY D
The Requester argues that “Federal Circuit and Board precedent [] clearly holds that independent corroboration of inventor testimony is required even when antedating a reference,” and that the submitted evidence lacks such independent corroboration of inventor’s testimony (App. Br. 19–20, citing In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169–70 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). ...
In this regard, the Requester appears to read more into NTP than merited in asserting that independent corroboration is required. The pertinent portion of NTP:
A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id.
NTP, 654 F.3d at 1291.
Thus, by stating that “[a]n inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony,” and citing to 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b) in support, the type of corroboration referenced by the court in NTP is the evidence that is set forth in 37 CFR § 1.131(b). We do not understand NTP as mandating some heightened independent corroboration requirement beyond that set forth in the rule as the Requester advocates.
NTP, In re, 654 F.3d 1268, 99 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2258 , 2658
1774 Ex parte NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6551358 et al 09/247,390 90012937 - (D) GUEST 103 NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DANISCO US INC. TILL, TERRENCE R original GARRETT, DAWN L
3763 ANGIODYNAMICS, INC. Respondent, Requester v. Patent of C.R. BARD, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7947022 et al 12/420,028 95002090 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. C.R. Bard, Inc. Third Party Requester: CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI
Posted by James Long at 10:54 AM
Labels: NTP
verdegaal, bond
bing shun, badasa
trading tech., elan pharm., donohue
kennametal, petering
IPXL, katz interactive, ultimatepointer
buysafe, DDR Holdings
gulack, ngai
rosselet, hedges
cortright, thorner
atlas powder2, dinh-nguyen
fallaux, ochiai, torpharm
zierden, woodruff
par pharmaceutical, medichem
soni, baxter travenol, applied materials
Phillips, sri