In
The Federal Circuit held that Drs. Freeman and Wood's work contributed to the conception of the patented inventions in this particular case. Specifically, Drs. Freeman and Wood collaborated with Inventor Dr.
The Federal Circuit rejected Ono's arguments challenging the extensiveness of Drs. Freeman and Wood's contributions to conception. The Federal Circuit viewed that none of the proffered bases in this particular case—Drs. Freeman and Wood's absence from certain experiments leading to conception, no previous in vivo work by them, the novelty and nonobviousness of the claimed inventions over a patent application reflecting Drs. Freeman and Wood's contribution, and publication of their work a few weeks prior to conception of the total invention—necessarily negated the alleged inventors' overall contributions to conception of the invention throughout their collaborations with
Originally published by Finnegan,
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
20001-4413
Tel: 2024084000
Fax: 2024084400
E-mail: info@finnegan.com
URL: www.finnegan.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source