Peter B. Cooper v. David Goldfarb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “reduction to practice” can be either “constructive,” by filing a patent application, or “actual,” by building the invention and showing it works for its in- tended purpose
• “When testing is necessary, the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority must actually work for its intended purpose.”
• “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence.”
• “[c]orroboration may be established by ‘sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature’”
• “In order to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder ob- server. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an in- dependent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.”
• “In order to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder ob- server. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an in- dependent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).