Dionex Softron Gmbh v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DIONEX SOFTRON GMBH,
Appellant
v.
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2021-1794
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 106,087.
______________________
Decided: January 6, 2023
______________________
ANDREW J AMES I SBESTER, Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant.
Also represented by BYRON R OBERT CHIN; K RISTOPHER L.
REED, Dallas, TX.
J OHN B. S GANGA, J R., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear,
LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by
EDWARD M. CANNON, P HILIP MARK N ELSON.
______________________
Before REYNA, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-1794 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

DIONEX SOFTRON GMBH v. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2
STARK, Circuit Judge.
The outcome in this patent case depends on the out-
come in a separate case also decided today: Dionex Softron
GmbH v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., No. 21-2372 (“Dionex
I”).
In this case, as in Dionex I, Dionex Softron GmbH (“Di-
onex”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
(“Board”) judgment in an interference proceeding, award-
ing priority to Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Agilent”). As in
Dionex I, the parties here dispute whether the Board erred
in its determinations of priority, conception, and reduction
to practice. The parties here raise essentially the same ar-
guments and counter-arguments with respect to those is-
sues. Compare Opening Br. 27-50 with Dionex I Opening
Br. 44-64; Response Br. 37-75 with Dionex I Response Br.
14-65; Reply Br. 18-27 with Dionex I Reply Br. 2-24; see also
Dionex I, Oral Arg. at 0:22-0:34 (counsel for Dionex stating
that priority issues in both cases were “essentially identi-
cal”).
As in Dionex I, Dionex contends that the Board erred
because it awarded priority to Agilent based on a determi-
nation of actual reduction to practice that was insuffi-
ciently corroborated. Although this case and Dionex I
involve different patent applications and a different inter-
ference count, both cases involve essentially the same tech-
nology, and the Board relied upon essentially the identical
evidence and analysis in awarding Agilent’s patent appli-
cation priority over Dionex’s patent application in both
cases.
In Dionex I, we affirmed the Board’s award of priority
to Agilent’s patent application. We incorporate by refer-
ence our opinion in Dionex I and, for the same reasons
stated therein, we affirm the Board’s award of priority to
Agilent’s patent application in this case. As in Dionex I,
the Board in this case did not err in awarding priority to
Agilent based on finding that Agilent’s actual reduction to
Case: 21-1794 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

DIONEX SOFTRON GMBH v. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3
practice preceded Dionex’s earliest alleged date of concep-
tion. Also, as in Dionex I, the Board’s determination here
that Agilent’s reduction to practice was sufficiently corrob-
orated under the rule of reason analysis is supported by
substantial evidence.1 For those reasons, we affirm the
Board’s judgment.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
1 As in Dionex I, we have considered all of the par-
ties’ arguments in addition to those we explicitly address
and find them unpersuasive.
Case: 21-1794 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 01/06/2023

-- 3 of 3 --