The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment of anticipation and rejected plaintiff's argument that its satellite television patent was conceived prior to the effective date of the anticipating prior art. "Corroboration is required where a party seeks to show conception through the oral testimony of an inventor. . . . At best, all of the evidence [plaintiff] uses to support its conception argument shows a general goal for creating a satellite system that eventually matured into the [patent-in-suit]; this is insufficient. . . . "[N]one of the evidence produced by [plaintiff] satisfies the particularity requirement for conception. Indeed, none of the three documents cited by [plaintiff] discuss any of the following limitations from the [patent-in-suit]: (1) 'a first switch connected to a first input;' (2) 'a second switch connected to a second input;' (3) 'a data stream junction;' (4) 'a controller for receiving a channel select input;' or (5) 'a memory device operatively connected to the controller'."
Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. DirecTV, Inc., et. al., 1-09-cv-00506 (TXWD June 17, 2011, Order) (Nowlin, J.)