News & Analysis as of

Interference Proceeding

Lack of Enablement in Provisional Application Results in Loss of Priority

In Storer v. Clark, [2015-1802] (June 21, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision awarding priority in an interference to Clark, on the grounds that Storer’s provisional application did...more

PTAB Terminates Interference Involving Revolutionary Gene Modification Technology

On February 15, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated a patent interference between the Broad Institute and the University of California, finding the parties’ respective claims to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and...more

Recent Decisions Clarify (Un)Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements

Companies looking to waive class action rights of employees may instead be waving goodbye to provisions in their employment contracts. Two recent decisions in California—one administrative and one in the 9th Circuit—recently...more

If You Can’t Say Something Nice . . .

In Bamberg v. Dalvey, [2015-1548] (March 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an appeal from a consolidated interference proceeding refusing to allow the claims of four patent applications because the...more

CRISPR Interference Motions Set

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has made its decision regarding the motions each party will be able to bring in Interference No. 108,048 between the Broad Institute and the University of California ("University") over...more

CRISPR Interference Declared

CRISPR (an acronym for Clustered Regularly lnterspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), which is part of a system for altering chromosomal sequences in situ in a cell in combination with a bacterially derived protein called Cas9,...more

PTAB Declares Interference for Groundbreaking Gene-Editing Technology

Earlier this week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) set the stage for what is expected to be an epic battle over who owns the intellectual property rights to “the biggest biotech discovery of the century.” On January...more

Interference Statute Does Not Require Diligence For Re-Presenting Claims

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In In re: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, the Federal Circuit held that pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(1) does not embody a diligence requirement, such that interfering claims presented more than 5 years...more

Federal Circuit Approves Tactical Delay in Bringing Interference Action

On November 20, 2015, in In re Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation and Bayer CropScience NV (2014-1710), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

“Death by a Thousand Cuts” – Commercial Landlord Liable for Constructive Eviction Based on Cumulative Interference with Tenant’s...

In its recent decision, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 69th Street Retail Mall, L.P., 2015 WL 5778622, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the liability of a commercial landlord on a claim of constructive eviction based on the...more

Construction Law Advisory - October 2015

by Saul Ewing LLP on

The Massachusetts Attorney General is taking action to ensure that general contractors working on public construction are complying with state requirements to use DBE/MBE subcontractors. In August 2015, the Attorney...more

Equitable Conduct Affirmative Defense Is Stricken

by Morris James LLP on

The court finds that defendants’ inequitable conduct defense is not plausible since it is based solely on plaintiff’s failure to disclose information related to the Interference. The court finds that the BPAI terminated the...more

District Courts Have No Jurisdiction to Review Board Decision for Interferences Declared after September 15, 2012 - Biogen MA,...

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the impact of the America Invents Act (AIA) on judicial review of interference proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that a district court may not review Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 146 pursuant to changes in the statute provided by the...more

Proof of Conception of Invention Is Not Confined to Any Formula - Sanofi-Aventis v Pfizer Inc.

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Analyzing whether proof of conception of a DNA segment invention required a showing of the entire polynucleotide sequence, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and...more

The Five Ps of Patent Reform: What You Need to Know About the Patent Litigation Reform Legislation Moving Through Congress

by King & Spalding on

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was passed by Congress and enacted into law on September 16, 2011. Named for its lead sponsors, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Act changed the U.S. patent...more

Federal Circuit Holds Full Sequence Not Required for Invention of DNA

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Sanofi-Aventis v. Pfizer, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s determination that Pfizer had proven an earlier date of invention of the DNA sequence at issue, even though it did not have the full, correct...more

Patent Watch: In Re Morsa

by BakerHostetler on

On April 5, 2013, in In re Morsa, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader, Lourie, O'Malley*) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision...more

Pinpointing Invention Conception Date in a Patent Interference

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Dawson v. Dawson, the Federal Circuit considered an unusual case with a question that often arises in interferences: when did the inventor invent the subject matter at issue. While the decision does not break new ground in...more

The Perfect Patent Office Litigator

In this video, Robert Greene Sterne, a founding director of intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., describes the perfect patent office litigator to handle the new contested proceedings under...more

Patent Watch: In re Hubbell

by BakerHostetler on

On March 7, 2013, in In re Hubbell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, O'Malley* Wallach) affirmed the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision upholding the patent examiner's rejection...more

A Look at the Technical Amendments to the America Invents Act (AIA) Made by HR 6621

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

On January 14, 2013, President Obama signed HR 6621 into law. The title of HR 6621 is “To correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,” but it also makes changes to other provisions of U.S....more

Let The Race Begin: U.S. Joins The World In Rewarding The First Inventor To File

by Perkins Coie on

On March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act (AIA) changes U.S. patent law from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system, which moves U.S. patent law into closer harmony with most industrialized nations...more

Patent Watch: Hor v. Chu

by BakerHostetler on

A § 256 claim for correction of inventorship does not accrue until the patent issues. [T]he failure to challenge inventorship before the PTO [does not] bar an inventor from later contesting inventorship under § 256. ...more

Changes to U.S. Patent Law Under the AIA Take Effect September 16, 2012

Important provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA"), the most significant patent reform legislation in decades, will be implemented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") over the next six months....more

28 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.