In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof. Investigations Nos. 337-TA-741 and 337-TA-749. Volume 2 of 2.

摘要

The parties dispute whether or not Lowe and Miyazaki are prior art to the '063 patent. The evidence supports findings that Lowe (RX-16) was filed on May 10,1996, and Miyazaki (RX-12) was filed on September 5, 1996. Both filing dates precede the filing date of the '063 patent, which was April 15,1997. Still, this does not end the inquiry, as, in this instance, 'a document is prior art only when published before the invention date.' Mahurkar v. CR. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572,1576 (Fed. Ch. 1996). The Federal Circuit has explained that 'priority of invention' goes to the first party to reduce an invention to practice unless the other party can show that it was the first to Corneive the invention and that it exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice.' Id. (quoting Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2f 1187,1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Therefore, to demonstrate that Lowe and Miyazaki are not prior art, Thomson must show either: (1) an earlier conception and reduction to practice; or (2) an earlier conception coupled with 'reasonable diligence toward reduction to practice from a date just prior to the other party's conception to its reduction to practice.' Id. at 1578.