In an interference proceeding, who wins if Mia conceives before Bruno but reduces to practice later?

In an interference proceeding, the determination of who wins is primarily based on the principles of "first to conceive" and "reduction to practice." In this scenario, Mia conceived her invention before Bruno, which gives her an advantage in terms of priority. However, simply conceiving of an invention is not enough; the inventor must also reduce the invention to practice—either through an actual working model or by filing a patent application.

Mia’s ability to win is contingent upon her demonstrating that she was diligent in her efforts to reduce her invention to practice after conception. Diligence means that the inventor took reasonable steps to complete the process and did not let unnecessary delays occur. If she can show that she exercised that diligence and made continuous efforts to bring her invention to fruition, she would prevail over Bruno, even though he may reduce to practice first.

In contrast, if Mia cannot prove her diligence, then Bruno's later reduction to practice could potentially place him in the winning position. However, given that the question assumes Mia has exercised diligence, she maintains her priority based on her earlier conception.

The other potential outcomes reflect situations not applicable here: for instance, neither inventor winning stems from different issues, such as both applications containing non-patentable subject