Fed. Cir. affirms the district court’s finding that a putative inventor failed to prove co-inventorship by clear and convincing evidence because he did not present any credible testimony that could be corroborated.

General Electric Co. v. Wilkins, ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014) (LOURIE, Taranto, Chen) (E.D. Cal: O’Neill) (2 of 5 stars)

The Court explained that a “putative inventor must first provide credible testimony” before the rule of reason standard is applied to measure the corroboration of the inventor’s testimony.  Slip op. at 11.  There was no clear error in the district court’s assessment that the putative inventor’s testimony lacked credibility because he provided purposefully evasive testimony and was repeatedly impeached.  The district court properly considered all admitted trial exhibits and its opinion need not discuss every admitted exhibit.  In light of the facts in the record and the rule of reason, the district court did not clearly err in rejecting documents cited by putative inventor.