Opinion ID: 208729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the '406 Patent is Prior Art

Text: As an alternative to its position that risedronate was not obvious, P & G argues that the '406 patent should not be considered prior art with respect to the '122 patent because risedronate was first synthesized by P & G before the '406 patent was filed. At trial, Dr. Benedict, one of the inventors named in the '122 patent, testified that he synthesized risedronate in May 1985. P & G submitted a portion of Dr. Benedict's laboratory notebook which contains a May 3, 1985 entry detailing the structure of risedronate and the procedure for its synthesis, but this entry was unwitnessed and was not corroborated by any other evidence. It is well established that when a party seeks to prove conception via the oral testimony of a putative inventor, the party must proffer evidence corroborating that testimony. Shu-Hui Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed.Cir.2003). The inventor must provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and documents. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032 (Fed.Cir.1989). Because P & G did not provide adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date for risedronate, the district court correctly concluded that the '406 patent qualifies as prior art for purposes of this inquiry.