District Court Denies Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion on Improper Inventorship Defense, But Grants Plaintiff’s Motion on Derivation Defense

Jul 10, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. HTC Corp., involves several patents, one of which names a single inventor, Mr. Benoist Sebire.  Before the November 2007 filing date, Mr. Sebire, along with other members of a working group, participated in conference relating to 3G technology.  At the conference, materials were distributed to attendees, including a proposal by Ericsson.  After the conference, but still before the filing date, an attendee circulated a summary of the working group’s discussions to Mr. Sebire and other attendees.  The meeting and materials became the bases for HTC’s defenses of improper inventorship and derivation with regard to the Sebire patent.   HTC did not, however, identify the alleged correct inventor(s).  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on both the improper inventorship defense as well as the derivation defense.    

The court first addressed the improper inventorship defense.  Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) provides that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.”  To prove invalidity for improper inventorship, one must show clear and convincing proof that the patent names “more or fewer than the true inventors.”  Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Cellular Communications urged that the law required the defendant to identify the purportedly true inventor(s) to support its defense.  The court, however, rejected this argument, noting that Cellular Communications “failed to cite case law that explicitly requires the identification of a putative inventor to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to improper inventorship.”  After resolving this legal issue, the court considered the evidence.  According to the court, two pieces of evidence–the email summary, and expert testimony regarding the summary’s contents–established an issue of fact with regard to inventorship.  As a result, summary judgment was denied on this issue.

With respect to derivation, however, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Like improper inventorship, a derivation defense is rooted in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).  Cumberland Pharm. v. Mylan Inst., 846 F. 3d 1213, 1217-18 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  To establish this defense, one must demonstrate “both prior conception of the invention by another and communication of that conception to the patentee” by clear and convincing evidence.  Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  In turn, to show conception, one must show “formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention.”  Singh v. Brake, 317 F.2d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added).  To support its derivation defense, HTC pointed to a slide deck and the Ericsson proposals coupled with the working group’s discussions.  With respect to the slide deck, the court agreed with Cellular Communications that the deck merely disclosed “one step out of many that [were] claimed” in the Sebire patent.  Accordingly, this was insufficient to establish conception.  With respect to the Ericsson proposals and the group’s discussions, the court concluded that this evidence failed to show that “another inventor conceived a definite and permanent idea of the . . . invention.”  Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Cellular Communications on the issue of derivation. 

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. HTC Corp., Civil No. 6-16-cv-475-KNM (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2018) (Mitchell, MJ)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.