U.S. patent law[]
Actual reduction to practice requires that the inventor
| “ | prove that: (1) he constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations. . . and (2) he determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.[1] | ” |
Whether actual testing is required to prove the invention works for its intended purpose depends on the character and complexity of the invention and the problem it addresses.[2] Some inventions may be "so simple and their purpose and efficacy so obvious that their complete construction is sufficient to demonstrate workability."[3] "[R]eduction to practice cannot be established nunc pro tunc;" rather, "[t]here must be contemporaneous recognition and appreciation of the invention represented by the counts."[4]
References[]
- ↑ Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(full-text).
- ↑ Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text).
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401, 176 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 519 (C.C.P.A. 1973)(full-text).