Case: 21-1794 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 JAMES ISBESTER, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by BYRON ROBERT CHIN; KRISTOPHER L. REED, Dallas, TX.

JOHN B. SGANGA, JR., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by EDWARD M. CANNON, PHILIP MARK NELSON. ______________________

Before REYNA, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges. Case: 21-1794 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2023

2 DIONEX SOFTRON GMBH v. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

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: 3 Filed: 01/06/2023

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.