reduced to practice in May 1993 and November 1993 patent applications. If true, these facts permit Broadcom to antedate the Burson reference, which was filed in December 1993 — subsequent to both the lab notebook and the 1993 patent applications. See generally Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1996). Having been presented with the deceased inventor’s lab notebook, the patent applications, and the testimony of a co-inventor, a coworker, and Broadcom’s expert, the jury rejected Qualcomm’s invalidity contentions. Qualcomm argues that neither the lab notebook nor the 1993 patent applications disclose every limitation of the asserted claims. Qualcomm relies on our recent holding in PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), and argues that Broadcom failed to carry its
holding that once a defendant established that stateagent immunity attached the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish that an exception to the immunity was applicable holding that the nonmoving party must come forward with significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact holding that once a defendant established prior art anticipating the asserted claims the burden was on the patentee to come forward with evidence to the contrary holding that patentees testimony of his belief that the defendant would comply with a 1979 agreement supported the reasonable inference that patentee had no reason to sue until at least 1986 when patentee saw evidence of infringement holding that the burden is on the plaintiff