Opinion ID: 212477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Anticipation by the Branch River Air-Flo Product

Text: We likewise conclude that Old Reliable had a reasonable foundation for its argument that the '950 patent was not anticipated by the Branch River Air-Flo product. Old Reliable contended that the Air-Flo was not invalidating prior art because it did not contain the cross-ventilation feature disclosed in the '950 patent. The district court rejected this argument, relying on the testimony of Dauphinais, a long-time Branch River employee, who stated that Branch River had filled an order in which it had cut cross-channels into its Air-Flo product prior to the critical date of the '950 patent. [5] Invalidity Decision, 609 F.Supp.2d at 748-49. Old Reliable, however, had non-frivolous grounds for asserting that Dauphinais' testimony was inadequate to establish anticipation by the Air-Flo. It argued that his testimony was inherently unreliable, noting that Dauphinais appeared uncertain as to when the events in question occurred. Old Reliable contended, moreover, that his testimony was wholly uncorroborated and that none of the documentation produced by Cornell showed cross-venting on the Air-Flo product before the '950 patent's critical date. See Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 628 F.3d 1359, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2010) (Generally, corroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent. This requirement stems from the suspect nature of oral testimony concerning invalidating events. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, although the district court chose to credit Dauphinais' testimony, Old Reliable had reasonable grounds for challenging that testimony and for contending that the Air-Flo was not anticipatory prior art.