Roscoe v. Mirror Lite on testimony; inequitable conduct

In the nonprcedential Roscoe v, Mirror Lite, the CAFC noted that testimonial evidence of invalidity must be corroborated, citing to Finnigan v. ITC, 180 F3d 1354. It is worth noting that the testimonial evidence in the Finnigan case was by Keith Jefferts, who was a disinterested third party. So when the court noted that the corroboration could be by testimonial evidence other than from the inventor or interested party, remember that corroboration is required even when the initial testimony is from a disinterested party (Jefferts had no connection to Bruker-Franzen or to Finnigan).

Of the alleged corroborating evidence in this case (Exhibit 110), the CAFC noted that the district court was not one skilled in the art and should not have assessed technical aspects on its own, citing Dayco, 329 F3d 1358.

In the inequitable conduct portion of the case, the CAFC was not troubled that a witness described the term "convex" one way in the patents and another way in testimony, because in testimony he admitted it had two different meanings.