Opinion ID: 751535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: inventorship of the '078 patent

Text: 29 The jury found that Faneuf was the sole inventor of the '078 patent. On post trial motion, Curtis and Judd asserted that the district court should hold as a matter of law that Judd was at least a co-inventor of the '078 patent because Faneuf's claims of inventorship lack the required corroboration beyond his oral testimony. The district court found that [h]ere the jury had before it a written disclosure, a mock prototype, and drawings which had been prepared by Faneuf in May 1989. These evidentiary items were sufficient to permit the jury to find that Faneuf had carried his burden of proving inventorship by clear and convincing corroborative evidence. Curtis Mfg., slip op. at 14-15. 30 A patent carries a statutory presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (1994). Therefore, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Faneuf was the sole inventor of the '078 patent. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed.Cir.1993). An inventor's testimony, standing alone without any corroborating evidence, however, cannot rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence. Id., 26 USPQ2d at 1036. 31 As this court held, [d]etermining 'inventorship' is nothing more than determining who conceived the subject matter at issue.... Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1358 (Fed Cir.1994). Conception and inventorship are questions of law, which we review de novo. Id. Any underlying facts found by the jury, however, we review under the substantial evidence standard. Substantial evidence constitutes such relevant evidence, on the record reviewed as a whole, that could be viewed by a reasonable mind as adequate to support the verdict. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893, 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984). 32 Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed.Cir.1986) (citation omitted). 33 Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.... 34 Thus, the test for conception is whether the inventor had an idea that was definite and permanent enough that one skilled in the art could understand the invention; the inventor must prove his conception by corroborating evidence, preferably by showing a contemporaneous disclosure. An idea is definite and permanent when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan he hopes to pursue. The conception analysis necessarily turns on the inventor's ability to describe his invention with particularity. Until he can do so, he cannot prove possession of the complete mental picture of the invention. These rules ensure that patent rights attach only when an idea is so far developed that the inventor can point to a definite, particular invention. 35 Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1919 (Fed.Cir.1994) (citations omitted). 36 Claim 1 of the '078 patent, the only independent claim, reads as follows: 37 1. A document holder clip adapted to hold a document adjacent a monitor screen, which comprises in combination: 38 (a) a support bracket means to be secured adjacently to a monitor screen or other fixed support; 39 (b) an extending arm having a one and other end and an upper edge with a front and back surface and having a slightly raised flange elements extending outwardly from the front and rear surfaces and substantially the length of the extending arm and slightly below the upper edge of either side of the arm; 40 (c) means to provide for the pivotable movement of the extending arm at the one end thereof so as to permit the extending arm to be pivotably moved between a use and a non-use position; and 41 (d) a slidably mounted document clip means to retain a document, which holder means comprises: 42 (i) a pair of generally parallel clip arm elements having a one and an other end, that the one end forming opposing jaws on either side of the extending arm; 43 (ii) a resilient hinge means generally intermediate the generally parallel clip arm elements; 44 (iii) a clip retaining means between the clip arm elements and below the hinge means which extend and fit over flanges of the arm to retain the clip means on the arm and to permit the slidable movement along the upper edge of the arm of the document clip in use; 45 (iv) a resilient, bent spring finger at the other end of one of the clip arm elements, the spring finger inclined inwardly toward the hinge means; and 46 (v) a spring finger retainer at the other end of the other arm clip element whereby the one end of the resilient spring finger is engaged in the spring finger retainer so that the opposing jaw elements are biased in closed, inward, document retaining position adjacent to the surface of the extending arm so as to retain a document between at least one jaw end and the surface of the extending arm and whereby upon the application of finger pressure on the ends of the clip arm element, one end of the spring finger moves downwardly toward the hinge means and away from the retaining stop to place the opposing jaws in an open position for the removal of the document. 47 On appeal, Curtis and Judd assert that Plasti-Clip and Faneuf did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Faneuf is the sole inventor of the '078 patent because Faneuf's May 18, 1989 price quotation and the model shown to Curtis on May 19, 1989 do not disclose every feature of every limitation of the claims at issue. 4 More specifically, Curtis and Judd assert that the quotation and the model did not disclose a slidably mounted document clip means with a T-shaped flange that runs the substantial length of the Curtis arm, a clipping element with a wide bottom and C shaped jaws that don't close and which span the openings of the arm. Curtis and Judd argue that, in fact, the notches on the Faneuf May 19 model teach away from the claimed slidability of the clip because it shows only a clipping element that is snapped into a fixed, non-sliding position. For instance, at trial, Curtis and Judd assert, Faneuf's clip could be forced to slide on the arm only with considerable difficulty and, when so forced, the clip retaining means prevented the jaws from closing, making it incapable of retaining a document. 48 To conceive the claimed invention, Faneuf had to have conceived of the claimed combination. Faneuf, however, admitted that he did not conceive of the support bracket means limitation, the extending arm limitation, or the means to provide for the pivotable movement of the extending arm in combination with a slidably mounted document clip. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence supporting the verdict that Faneuf was the sole inventor of the '078 patent involving a combination of a support bracket, an extending arm, a means to provide for the pivotable movement of the extending arm, and a slidably mounted document clip. 49 The remaining question is whether Faneuf is a joint inventor of the inventions claimed in any claim of the '078 patent. 50 A joint invention is the product of a collaboration between two or more persons working together to solve the problem addressed. People may be joint inventors even though they do not physically work on the invention together or at the same time, and even though each does not make the same type or amount of contribution. The statute does not set forth the minimum quality or quantity of contribution required for joint inventorship. 51 Burroughs Wellcome Co., 40 F.3d at 1227, 32 USPQ2d at 1919 (citations omitted). 52 Faneuf asserts that there was sufficient evidence at trial for the jury to find corroboration of his inventorship claim to the '078 patent because his May 18 quote and May 19 prototype exhibited all of the essential features of the device claimed in the '078 patent. Faneuf's May 18 quotation and his May 19 model is shown below. 53 Faneuf asserts that both his quote and prototype had a T-shaped flange and that he demonstrated slidability of his clip at trial, both of which are limitations of claim 1 of the '078 patent. The problem with these two assertions is that the T-shaped flange shown in the May 18 quote and on the prototype was taken from an existing Curtis' document arm admittedly not conceived of by Faneuf. Faneuf admitted that the T-shaped flange was on the Curtis document arm as it existed when he received the sample from Hames. In fact, Faneuf had actually notched the Curtis document arm as shown in the top view picture above to accommodate his stock garment clip. The slidability that was demonstrated at trial did not come from Faneuf's garment clip on the May 19 prototype, but from the garment clip as applied to a commercial embodiment of the Curtis Design Patent 301,044. When Faneuf tried to slide his clip on the May 19 prototype, it broke. In fact, Faneuf showed slidability of his garment clip on an inadmissible prototype that had been milled down and made after-the-fact specifically for trial. This hardly provides contemporaneous corroboration of Faneuf's assertion of inventorship on May 19. 54 Faneuf also asserts that Judd admitted that he incorporated Faneuf's exciting clip technology into the Curtis clip. The spring technology from the garment clip that Faneuf asserts was incorporated into the claimed invention of the '078 patent is described in the '863 patent as follows: 55 a spring finger on one member at the other side of the hinge resiliently biased into engagement against the other member so as yieldingly to hold the jaws closed, the spring finger forming an open loop disengageable from the other member for insertion through an aperture in an article, whereby the finger serves both as a spring to close the jaws and a holder for the article. 56 '863 patent at col. 2, lines 26-43. 57 The spring finger of the '078 patent calls for: 58 a resilient, bent spring finger at the other end of one of the clip arm elements, the spring finger inclined inwardly toward the hinge means; and a spring finger retainer at the other end of the other arm clip element whereby the one end of the resilient spring finger is engaged in the spring finger retainer so that the opposing jaw elements are biased in closed, inward, document retaining position adjacent to the surface of the extending arm so as to retain a document between at least one jaw end and the surface of the extending arm and whereby upon the application of finger pressure on the ends of the clip arm element, one end of the spring finger moves downwardly toward the hinge means and away from the retaining stop to place the opposing jaws in an open position for the removal of the document. 59 '078 Patent, col. 5, line 34, through col. 6, line 3. 60 The spring finger of the '078 patent as described above does not form a disengageable open loop, as will be set forth more fully in the infringement section of the opinion below. Therefore, we hold as a matter of law that Mr. Faneuf is not a joint inventor of the '078 patent. 61 Because we hold that Faneuf is not an inventor of the '078 patent, we need not reach the issue of conversion of the '078 patent or the state law issues of misappropriation or unfair competition. 62