Is corroboration of evidence necessary when the testimony regarding lack of authorization is provided by the inventor?

In the context of patent law, corroboration of evidence is a crucial aspect when evaluating the credibility of testimony, especially in cases involving disputes over patent rights or issues like lack of authorization. Testimony from the inventor regarding claims of lack of authorization can be inherently subjective, as it reflects personal knowledge and experience.

The requirement for independent corroborating evidence serves to strengthen the inventor's claims, ensuring that these assertions are supported by objective facts or additional testimony. This corroboration is particularly important in the absence of written agreements or documentation, which can make the inventor's claims less credible if they stand alone without support.

In practice, when an inventor asserts a lack of authorization, independent evidence—such as witness testimony from others involved in the invention process, records of communications, or other relevant documents—can help substantiate that assertion. Therefore, the necessity of corroboration aligns with legal standards aimed at ensuring fairness and credibility in patent proceedings, especially when competing interests are at stake.