The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's inventorship claim, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the named inventor's thesis advisor was a co-inventor. "The Court concludes that the record evidence cannot support a reasonable finding that there was more than one inventor of the [patent-in-suit]. [Plaintiff] rests its contention that [the alleged co-inventor] was a co-inventor of the [patent-in-suit] on two central foundations: (1) that [the alleged co-inventor's] Feb. 1, 1999 email communicated two ideas that were subsequently incorporated into the claimed invention; and (2) that the extensive email correspondence between the [alleged co-inventor] and [the named inventor] reveals an extensive collaboration that supports co-inventorship. The undersigned finds that neither contention finds sufficient basis in the record to support a finding of co-inventorship, nor creates a genuine issue of material fact such that summary judgment in favor of Defendant should be precluded."
Juniper Networks Inc. v. Bahattab, 1-07-cv-01771
(DCD August 14, 2009, Report & Recommendation) (Kay, M.J.)