Oka et al. v. Youssefyeh et al.
849 F.2d 581, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1169 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conception of a chemical compound invention requires the simultaneous possession of both the idea of the compound's structure and an operative method for making that compound. These two elements cannot be established at different times for different chemical species to claim an earlier conception date for a generic invention.
Facts:
- The invention concerns a generic class of chemical compounds with two main species: 2-indanyl glycines and 5-indanyl glycines.
- On February 27, 1980, Youssefyeh's co-inventor, Suh, conceived of and recorded the structural formula for the 2-indanyl species.
- A skilled chemist working for Youssefyeh spent over six months attempting to synthesize the 2-indanyl compound but was unsuccessful.
- On October 10, 1980, Youssefyeh's team developed a method to make a compound that was outside the scope of the invention in dispute.
- During the last week of October 1980, Suh conceived of the 5-indanyl species and directed an assistant to use the October 10 method to prepare it.
- In December 1980, the assistant successfully synthesized the 5-indanyl compound using that method.
- Oka et al. filed a patent application in Japan for the same generic class of compounds on October 31, 1980.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated an interference proceeding (Interference No. 101,111) to determine which party, Oka or Youssefyeh, was the first to invent a specific class of chemical compounds.
- Oka et al. were designated the senior party based on their October 31, 1980 Japanese patent application filing date.
- Youssefyeh et al. were designated the junior party.
- The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the board) awarded priority of invention to the junior party, Youssefyeh.
- Oka et al., the senior party, appealed the board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the junior party, Youssefyeh, establish conception of the generic chemical compound invention prior to the senior party Oka's filing date of October 31, 1980, by combining the idea of one species with a later-developed method for making a different species?
Opinions:
Majority - Markey, Chief Judge
No. Youssefyeh failed to establish conception prior to Oka's filing date because conception of a chemical compound requires the simultaneous existence of both the idea of the compound's structure and possession of an operative method for making it. The court reasoned that conception consists of two parts: the idea of the invention and the selection of means to carry it out. For a chemical compound, this means having the idea of its structure and an operative method of making it. On February 27, 1980, Youssefyeh had the idea for the 2-indanyl species but no method to make it. On October 10, 1980, Youssefyeh had a method for making a different compound, but not the idea for the 5-indanyl species, which was the first species successfully made. The idea for the 5-indanyl species did not arise until the last week of October 1980, which for legal purposes is treated as October 31, 1980. Because Youssefyeh's conception date is no earlier than Oka's filing date, and in a tie the senior party prevails, priority must be awarded to Oka.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the temporal requirements for conception in patent law, particularly for chemical inventions. It establishes that the two essential elements of conception—the idea of the invention's structure and knowledge of an operative method of making it—must be held contemporaneously by the inventor. The decision prevents inventors from cobbling together a conception date by matching an early, failed idea for one embodiment with a later-developed method for a different embodiment. This ruling reinforces the senior party's presumption of priority and sets a high bar for junior parties seeking to prove an earlier date of invention, requiring concrete evidence that a complete and operative invention was conceived as a whole.
Unlock the full brief for Oka et al. v. Youssefyeh et al.