of the claims covering TiOx targets generically (i.e., not limited to particular methods like sintering),” and that Kida was only excluded in order to overcome the examiner’s rejections based on JP-469. (D.I. 234 at 6) In response, plaintiffs point to the trial testimony of Mitsui where he confirms that the declarations to the PTO were truthful, wherein Mitsui, Oyama and Sasaki affirmed that they were the only inventors of the “three inventor claims.” (D.I. 246 at 268:19-23; PTX-202 at 095-96; DTX-004 at 1613-14) To the extent Mitsui’s trial testimony was inconsistent, a credibility determination (i.e., a question of fact on the issue of Kida’s inventorship) was presented to the jury. See Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. MOC Products Co., Inc., 856 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1186-87 (S.D.Cal. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, it was for the jury to weigh
holding the conflict in expert declarations created a genuine issue of materi al fact that made summary judgment inappropriate holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact holding that signed declarations to the pto reciting that the signing parties are the only joint inventors despite testimony from coinventors to the contrary created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact