Opinion ID: 4551516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sole Inventorship Claim

Text: James argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against him on his inventorship claim. “Determining ‘inventorship’ is nothing more than determining who conceived the subject matter at issue[] . . . .” Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “It is settled that in establishing conception a party must show possession of every feature recited in the count, and that every limitation of the count must have been known to the inventor at the time of the alleged conception.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “[I]nventorship is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.” Gemstar-TV 5 The district court also concluded that the inventorship claim was barred by the doctrine of laches because James “had enough information to place upon him a duty of inquiry and thus a reasonable person in his position should have known that the [’]639 Patent issued in 2001” but delayed for 15 years in filing suit. J.A. 15. In light of our disposition, we do not reach the issue of laches. Case: 19-2016 Document: 56 Page: 8 Filed: 07/28/2020 8 JAMES v. J2 CLOUD SERVICES, LLC Guide Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The inventors as named in an issued patent are presumed to be correct.” Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States, 514 F.2d 1041, 1047 (Ct. Cl. 1975)). We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against James on the inventorship claim. Here, the evidence that James points to does not support his claim that he conceived the inventions in the ’638 patent. James testified that (1) he believed he was the “sole inventor of the technology claimed in the ’638 patent,” J.A. 340, and (2) when he looked at the patent he realized “that’s exactly what [he] invented,” J.A. 377. Such conclusory and self-serving testimony is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Conclusory . . . assertions [of a witness] cannot raise triable issues of material fact on summary judgment.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a witness’s conclusory assertion that the evidence demonstrated “conception, diligence[,] and reduction to practice” did not carry a party’s burden on summary judgment); see also Tech. Dev. Corp. v. United States, 597 F.2d 733, 747 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (“The proof of conception and/or reduction to practice is a heavy one for either party and requires more than self-serving testimony or uncorroborated records and documents.”). James also asserts that the fact that he was paid JFAX stock gives rise to an inference that he delivered “the laterpatented JFAX system.” Appellant Br. 15. He also claims that “JFAX’s allegedly-2001 press release” admits that his prototype implemented the same functions of the “laterclaimed JFAX system” because the press release states that the ’638 patent’s technology “allow[ed] both faxes and Case: 19-2016 Document: 56 Page: 9 Filed: 07/28/2020 JAMES v. J2 CLOUD SERVICES, LLC 9 voice messages to be received without the end user needing either a fax machine or a voice-mail system.” Id. (quoting J.A. 424). 6 We are unpersuaded by James’s arguments that his evidence supports conception. We conclude that James failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that he conceived and “possess[ed] . . . every feature recited in the c[laims]” of the ’638 patent. Davis v. Reddy, 620 F.2d 885, 889 (C.C.P.A. 1980). The district court properly granted summary judgment on James’s sole inventorship claim in favor of the defendants.