Opinion ID: 210220
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Single Document Corroboration

Text: The district court instructed the jury that [a]n inventor's testimony of conception must be corroborated in a single document. It later conceded that this instruction was improper, but nonetheless held that it did not constitute harmful error under the circumstances because Microsoft never presented, much less relied, on the testimony of an individual inventor. Instead, Microsoft represented to the court that `[f]or its § 102(g) defense, Microsoft did not need to name a particular person. . . . Microsoft corporately both conceived and reduced to practice before Mr. Colvin.' JMOL Opinion at 26 (quoting Microsoft's JMOL motion) (emphasis added). The district court expressed reservations concerning the propriety of asserting corporate conception, but it expressly declined to decide this issue, and simply held that because Microsoft admitted that it never presented oral testimony of an individual inventor who allegedly conceived the anti-piracy portion of BP 98, this instruction was simply not relevant to the verdict. Id. at 27 & n. 10. Because we agree that this instruction was not relevant, we need not and do not address the merits of Microsoft's claims regarding corporate conception. On appeal, Microsoft now contends that the jury could have assumed that one of its witnesses, Mr. Hughes, was an inventor. This argument is not persuasive. Microsoft cannot argue below that it did not and need not name an individual inventor, see id. at 26-27, yet now assert that the jury would have concluded precisely the opposite. Therefore, as the district court correctly concluded, whether such testimony must be corroborated by a `single document' was not an issue in the case. Thus, the improper instruction could not create sufficient error to warrant a new trial on the issue of anticipation. Id. at 27-28. Furthermore, this instruction could not have affected the outcome of the case, Hartsell, 207 F.3d at 272, in light of the substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Microsoft's BP 98 was not a reduction to practice of the asserted claims as discussed supra.