CEATS loses

The outcome in Ceats:



After the verdict, CEATS
challenged this verdict
as a matter of law
and also sought
a new trial. The
district court denied
relief.
Having reviewed the record
and the parties’ arguments, this court affirms.



Note


CEATS argues this evidence cannot corroborate
Broas’ and Lube
tkin’s testimony because
they are i
m-
proper “memory aids.”
See The Barbed Wire Patent
, 143
U.S. at 284 (noting the danger of prodding witnesses’
memories)
.
Particularly, it challenges the videos as
aiding Lubetkin
“in incorrectly recalling the details of
the
public May 1997 system.” Appellant’sBr. 32.

Contrary to CEATS’ assertion,
“[d]ocumentary or
physical evidence that is made contemporaneously with
the inventive process provides the most reliable proof that
the inventor’s testimony has been corroborated,” because
such evidence eliminates “the risk of litigation inspired
fabrication or exaggeration.”
Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco
Metal and Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1350–51 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).