Brief Fact Summary. Woodland (Plaintiff) brought suit against Flowertree (Defendant) claiming patent infringement of its foliage protection system.Â Defendant claimed the patent was not valid because the system had been known had been in use for more than a year before an application for patent had been filed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Oral testimony that is uncorroborated by interested parties regarding long-past events does not provide clear and convincing evidence as required to invalidate a patent on the grounds of prior knowledge and use.
One otherwise an infringer who assails the validity of a patent, fair upon its face, bears a heavy burden of persuasion and fails unless his evidence has more than a dubious preponderance.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Was the claimed invention anticipated by the Defendant’s system since it constituted prior art that was publicly known and used?
Held. (Newman, J.)Â No.Â The equipment claimed in the patent was not anticipated by Defendant’s systems.Â The oral testimony of long-past events was uncorroborated by the interested parties and does not provide the clear and convincing evidence required to invalidate a patent.Â In this context, oral testimony is regarded with skepticism and must be supported with corroboration.Â The following testimony is considered in assessing corroboration: the relationship between the witness and the prior user; the period of time between the event and trial; the interest of the corroborating witness in the subject matter in suit; contradiction or impeachment of the witness’s testimony; how detailed the testimony is; witness’s familiarity with the patented subject matter and the prior use; probability that a prior use could occur; and impact of the invention on the industry.Â There is no physical record to support the oral evidence in this case.Â The relationship of the witnesses and the fact that the prior use ended twenty years before the trial (and was abandoned until Defendant learned of Plaintiff’s practices) highlight that the oral evidence does not provide clear and convincing evidence of prior knowledge and use.Â Reversed and remanded.
Discussion. It has been held that Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) does not apply to prove dates of activity regarding an invention.