In early 2005, D embarked on a project to improve its microwave cooking process for precooked bacon. In July 2007, D planned to meet with P of Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. (Unitherm) to discuss the products and processes that D was developing, as well as to discuss Unitherm's cooking equipment. Unitherm, now HIP, was a company that produced food safety and thermal processing equipment. The parties eventually entered into a joint agreement to develop an oven to be used in a two-step cooking process. D conducted pork loin testing. D used both an infrared oven and a more conventional spiral oven. P alleged that it was during these meetings and the testing process that he disclosed the infrared preheating concept at issue on appeal. D conducted additional bacon testing using Unitherm's mini spiral test oven. Subsequent testing revealed that turning off internal electrical heating elements in the oven solved the charred, off flavor of the bacon, and preheating the bacon with a microwave oven prevented condensation from washing away the salt and flavor. The result was a two-step cooking process. The first step involved preheating the bacon and the second step involved cooking the meat in a superheated steam oven. D filed a non-provisional patent application for the two-step cooking process in August 2011, listing Brian J. Srsen, Richard M. Herreid, James E. Mino, and Brian E. Hendrickson as joint inventors. The application was issued in May 2018 as the '498 patent. The '498 patent names the four inventors, all of whom assigned their interests in the patent to D. P sued D alleging that P was either the sole inventor or a joint inventor of the '498 patent. P argued that P contributed to at least one of the following: (1) using superheated steam at a level of 90% or more in claims 3 and 12; (2) heating the internal surfaces of the oven to a temperature less than 375º F. in claim 1; (3) preheating by hot air in claim 5; and/or (4) preheating with an infrared oven in claim 5. The district court determined that P was not the sole inventor of the '498 patent, but that he was a joint inventor, based solely on his alleged contribution of the infrared preheating in claim 5. The court held that the infrared preheating concept in claim 5 was significant based on the differences between independent claim 1 and independent claim 5 and that P established that P's testimony was corroborated by Van Doorn's testimony, by the pork loin testing data, and by testimony from three of D’s inventors stating that they had not conceived of the preheating with an infrared oven limitation. D appealed. D claims that the alleged contribution of preheating with an infrared oven was well-known and part of the state of the art and was not significant when measured against the scope of the full invention. D also claimed that P's testimony was insufficiently corroborated.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.