From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Cooper v. Goldfarb
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
154 F.3d 1321 (1998)
Facts
Peter Cooper (plaintiff) and David Goldfarb (defendant) both filed patent applications for artificial vascular grafts constructed from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The viability of the invention was dependent on the length of the fibrils that connected the nodes. Goldfarb’s application was filed while Cooper’s was still pending, resulting in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) interference hearing. Goldfarb gave testimony concerning his examination of fibral lengths, which was corroborated by testimony from two witnesses. The interference board determined that Cooper had conceived of the invention before Goldfarb but, due to Cooper’s failure to exercise diligence in reducing the invention to practice, Goldfarb was the first to successfully accomplish the necessary reduction to practice and thus the true inventor. Cooper appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to contending that he deserved priority, Cooper also argued that Goldfarb’s reduction to practice should have been seen as inuring to Cooper’s benefit—that is, giving Cooper an advantage—an issue that the board had not considered.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.