Articles

Conception Does Not Require Proof to a Scientific Certainty

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
October 27, 2009

Gerstenblith, Bart A.

Article

In this article, Finnegan attorney Bart A. Gerstenblith examines the case of University of Pittsburgh v Hedrick, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered the construction of a disputed claim term as well as whether later contributors were correctly named as co-inventors on an issued patent. Mr. Gerstenblith goes through the history, litigants, and patents of the case, and concludes his article by highlighting two items of practical significance: first, a disavowal of claim scope must be truly unmistakable to narrow the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term; second, while an inventorship determination can be greatly influenced by the construction of the claim terms, conception does not always require proof to a scientific certainty. To view the article, please go to: http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jpp176?ijkey=9u1sQnNQ4Ka7v9n&keytype=ref