> I think proof of independent invention should at the very least establish a presumption that the invention is not novel. Proof of independent invention might

> I think proof of independent invention should at the very least establish a presumption that the invention is not novel. Proof of independent invention might not establish a presumption of lack of novelty, but it can help with proof of obviousness. As one author noted a few years ago, "The Federal Circuit has stated that, '[T]he possibility of near simultaneous invention by two or more equally talented inventors working independently,… may or may not be an indication of obviousness when considered in light of all the circumstances.' [Citations omitted] In other words, the fact that another person simultaneously and independently created the same invention claimed in the patent-in-suit can serve as an indication that the invention was obvious." \1 \1 Brent Yamashita [of DLA Piper], Secondary Considerations of Obviousness in a Patent Case: The Seldom-Used "Simultaneous Invention" Factor, at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/secondary-consi.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/secondary-consi.html (omissions in original).