Eing measured from a time just prior to the second

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 14 pages.

eing measured from a time just prior to the second conceiver's conception date. First to conceive must prove an additional element to win priority -- diligence. See slides with light bulbs and RTPs (August 30 th ) – not sure what the answers are to these illustrations. Priority Illustrations under 102(g) of 1952 Regime 5
Intellectual Property Invent RTP ----------I----------------------I-------------------I----------------I----- Invent RTP Invent RTP ----------I----------------------I-------------------I----------------I----- Invent RTP Invent RTP ----------I----------------------I-------------------I----------------I----- Invent RTP (First to conceive, but last to reduce to practice) Diligence measured in red o Griffith v. Kanamaru : Reasonable Diligence in reducing an invention to practice Facts: June 30, 1981 Plaintiff-Griffith invents concept for an aminocarnitine compounds. Three years later, on January 11, 1984 Griffith RTP . In the interim, on November 17, 1982, D-Kanamaru filed for a patent for the same invention. Griffith claimed that the delay in his reduction of the concept to practice was due to his university’s search for outside funding & b/c he wanted specific grad student to enroll in the university to help on the project. Griffith claimed that he had promised the student that she could work on this particular project after she enrolled. During the period b/w Griffith’s invention and its RTP Griffith often put aside the aminocarnitine work to focus on other projects. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interference found in favor of Kanamaru. Griffith appealed. Issue: Can an inventor prove that he was entitled to a patent for an invention even though another inventor filed for a patent for the invention first if he did not work with reasonable diligence to reduce the concept of the invention into practice? Holding: No. An inventor seeking to prove that he was entitled to a patent for an invention even though another inventor filed for a patent for the invention first must show that he worked with reasonable diligence to reduce the concept of the invention into practice. This reasonable diligence standard balances the interests of encouraging inventors with the interests of the public in reaping the benefits of inventions as quickly as possible. Courts may look to everyday problems and constraints when determining whether a party acted with reasonable diligence. Griffith did not claim that student was uniquely qualified to help with his research, nor did he claim that he was unable to find anyone else to help with his research in the interim. Excuse as more in the line of commercial development, which has not been recognized as a sufficient excuse under the reasonable diligence standard. In general, delays in reduction to practice caused by an inventor's efforts to refine an invention to the most marketable and profitable form have not been accepted as sufficient excuses for inactivity. ( Cf. " hardship cases" in which inventor was sick). Evidence rather suggests that he made only minimal efforts to secure funding b/c the experiment was not his priority .

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture