Chapter 62: Three Names on the Slide
Sterling's slide put three names above one idea.
Evelyn Sterling.
Celeste Sterling.
Theo Bell.
The company called it proof of collective invention. The title read AURORA CONCEPT LEADS, and the center showed a simplified platform diagram.
The tribunal asked for the source file.
Its creation date came eighteen months after my first hypothesis memo. The file path placed it inside INVESTOR ROADSHOW—ROUND TWO, not a research archive.
The metadata showed three revisions, all made during the week before the roadshow. None linked to a laboratory notebook, research review, or invention disclosure. The final revision enlarged Celeste's name and moved Theo's beside mine so the slide balanced visually.
The changes made sense as presentation design. They made little sense as a record of conception.
A balanced slide was not a balanced contribution history.
Its symmetry belonged to marketing.
Celeste said the later date reflected when the team formalized work already done together.
"Who created the slide?" the chair asked.
Her brand director had.
"From what source?"
Sterling produced an email requesting three recognizable names for an investor visit. It did not ask who originated a patent claim. It asked who would appear credible on the presentation.
Theo's name created the next problem.
He had been a junior research assistant at the time, not a concept lead. His personnel record described sample tracking, meeting preparation, and draft formatting under my supervision.
Sterling counsel argued that titles often lagged real contribution.
The tribunal asked whether Theo had signed an invention assignment for the claimed concept. Sterling produced his standard employee agreement, which assigned any invention he actually made but did not identify one. An obligation to assign was not evidence that an invention existed.
Theo's personnel review from the same period credited him for reliable execution and preparation. It did not credit him with creating the platform hypothesis.
"Then map Mr. Bell's contribution to a claim," I said.
They could not.
The slide included no date beside an idea, no author history for the diagram, and no citation to a laboratory record. It established that Sterling publicly grouped three people during a financing roadshow.
It did not establish what any of us invented.
Celeste focused on my own name.
"You accepted collective credit when it helped raise money."
"I did not create or approve this slide."
"You attended the roadshow."
"I presented the science. That does not authenticate the title."
The tribunal checked the event agenda. I had delivered a technical overview. Celeste opened the investor session. Theo prepared the demonstration materials.
Three roles.
One slide.
Sterling had collapsed them into the word leads.
The chair classified the exhibit as a financing communication created after the research period relevant to the earliest claims. It remained evidence that the company represented a team, but not contemporaneous proof of joint conception.
Nathan objected to excluding commercial records from inventorship.
"They are not excluded," the chair said. "They receive the weight their source and date support."
That answer left the slide in the record and took away the conclusion Sterling wanted it to carry.
Celeste requested permission to call the brand director. The tribunal allowed it but noted that the director had not worked in the laboratory.
I requested Theo.
Sterling opposed, arguing that he was a junior employee with no independent memory of executive discussions.
"He does not need executive memory," I said. "His name is on your exhibit."
The tribunal issued a protected witness notice. Theo could testify only to what he personally observed, created, or received. He would not be asked about participant material or safety events.
The slide remained on the screen when the session closed.
Three names could create an image of equality.
The next witness would say what those names had actually done.