Opinion ID: 480283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Work on Related Cases

Text: 23 Frequently, an inventor or group of inventors may file more than one patent application involving closely related subject matter. In this type of situation, the exact lines of demarcation between the cases [may not be] clear in all respects at the start. 10 24 In Ginos v. Nedelec, 11 Ginos worked during a period of 150 days on the development of several pharmaceutical compounds closely related in structure and utility. The board treated the compounds as one generic invention, and it credited Ginos' work on the closely related compounds as diligence with respect to the particular compound claimed in the application in question. 25 In Ginos, the several compounds originally were claimed in one grandparent application, which was subsequently divided into several applications claiming individual compounds. Presumably, the same finding of diligence would obtain if Ginos had originally filed a separate application for each compound, instead of one grandparent application. 26 Treating a generic invention and the resulting group of related applications as a whole, there may be significant overall savings in time and expense by having one attorney prepare the applications together as a group. In Bey's case, Hattan and her supervisor testified that the applications were assigned to one attorney because of the interrelationships in chemistry, structure, utility, and inventorship, as well as the distance between the patent law department in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the inventors' location in Strasbourg, France. Hattan's supervisor testified that while in theory [the applications] could have been distributed amongst several patent attorneys, in practice it would mean duplication of work unnecessarily and, ultimately, delay in preparation of the cases.In priority determinations, the inventor should not be penalized because his attorney reasonably prepared the closely related applications together, thereby expediting the filing of the applications and the prompt disclosure to the public of the closely related inventions contained therein. 27 The question is under what circumstances may work on a related case be credited as diligence with respect to the instant application. We hold that work on the related case is to be credited toward reasonable diligence if the work on the related case contribute[s] substantially to the ultimate preparation of the involved application. 12 28 Here, it appears that the board failed to apply the correct rule of law in determining whether Hattan's work on the related applications constituted diligence with respect to the present application. The board erroneously required Bey to show that all the cases in the alleged 'package' were docketed at the same time and to show that none of the related applications was filed before the present application. Here, the board seems to have blurred the test for related cases with the requirement that unrelated cases must be taken up in chronological order. 29 Hattan's unrebutted testimony, as corroborated by documentary evidence and by her supervisor's testimony, clearly shows that she took up the applications simultaneously as a group, well before the start of the critical period, and that the applications were filed within a few days of each other. This evidence would appear to support, rather than to negate, the applicability of the related cases doctrine. 30 The board also erred in requiring Bey to show that the cases had to be worked on as an integrated whole (emphasis supplied). The board stated that [t]he sheer number of cases involved makes it even more difficult to ascribe any unifying characteristics to the group as a whole. While there are a large number of cases involved, the number alone is not determinative as to whether the cases were sufficiently related. 31 The board's finding, that Bey failed to show that the cases were worked on as a group, is clearly erroneous on the basis of this record. Hattan testified that she worked on the whole enzyme inhibitor series of cases    simultaneously as a package. She explained the relationships between the applications as follows: 32 They're related in their basic mechanism of action. The whole enzyme inhibitor area is based on irreversible inhibition of various enzymes, and the utility form in various of these cases is the same. The chemistry involved in preparing many of these cases is the same across the board, with just a change of starting material. The inventorship is not the same on every case but there are common inventors involved on all of these cases, but the chemistry and utility are very closely interrelated in these cases. 33 Hattan continued her testimony in greater detail concerning the relationships in technology, utility, and inventorship: 34 The relationships are many. All of the compounds involved in that series of patent applications operate through the same basic mechanism of action; that is, irreversible inhibition of enzymes. 35 The series of compounds involved also are related structurally, the basic structure being that of the natural occurring amino acids with the compound including derivatives thereof, and all involve substitution at the alpha position of the amino acids or derivatives thereof with various functional groups. 36 Within any one group of amino acids the cases are further related insofar as utility is concerned that, for example, many of the cases have the same utility, the difference between cases having the same utility being generally the nature of the substituent at the alpha position, which also involves different chemical procedure for obtaining those compounds as the nature of the substituent at the alpha position varies within any one group of compounds involving the same amino acid, the only difference being within that series of compounds the nature of the substituent at the alpha position. 37 There is a cross-over from case to case of utility, and in preparing one application, for example, just to illustrate, in the preparation of Case--I believe the case number is MI-906, which is directed to alpha acetylenic and alpha vanillin histidine decarboxylase inhibitors and related compounds. 38 The utility statements in that application are essentially identical to those in Case MI-884, and in many instances in preparing the patent applications it was possible to take out large segments of one application and use it in the preparation of another application with very minor modifications. [Emphasis supplied.] 39 The patent applications are also interrelated on the basis of chemistry in many instances, and also on inventorship, there being a common inventor--namely, Dr. Jung--on all of the applications, the other inventors being Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Bey, and on two of the applications I believe Dr. Casara is also an inventor. 40 It is clear from Hattan's unrebutted testimony that the applications were treated as a group because of the closely related technology, even to the extent that the applications contained a common set of information: 41 The package was worked on as a group. All of these cases were treated as a group and worked on at the same time because there was such a common set of information that could be transferred from one case to another; and the reason they were worked on together as a package was to expedite the filing of the cases. By transferring information from case to case, it made the preparation much faster and the filing. 42 Hattan's testimony was corroborated by documentary evidence, including abstracts of the patent applications, as well as by the testimony of her supervisor. It does not appear that Bey introduced into evidence the 22 complete patent applications; however, Bey introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the applications were closely related, and Kollonitsch failed to introduce any evidence in rebuttal. The board itself acknowledged that all of the applications relied upon by Bey involved irreversible enzyme inhibitors. On this record, the board clearly erred in finding that the applications were not related. We hold that Hattan's work on the related cases must be credited toward reasonable diligence on the instant application, because Bey established that work on the related cases contributed substantially to the ultimate preparation of the involved application. 13 43 The record of Hattan's work on the related cases during the 41-day critical period contains unrebutted evidence of reasonable diligence. There is corroborated evidence of specific work performed on the related applications on almost every working day in the critical period to support Hattan's testimony that she worked continuously on the applications during this period. The record shows that 16 related patent applications, including the instant application (each containing 40-50 typewritten pages), were written, revised, proofread and/or finalized, mailed to the inventors in France for final review, and executed and mailed from Strasbourg by July 5, 1977. The PTO received the parent to the present application on July 11, 1977, the last day of the critical period. On this record of unrebutted, corroborated evidence, we hold that Bey established reasonable diligence during the continuous 41-day critical period, and that the board's finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous.