Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more
This case addresses certain implications of the Laehy-Smith America Invests Act (AIA), namely whether patents with a filing date after March 16, 2013 (pure AIA patents) may be part of an interference proceeding under pre-AIA,...more
SNIPR Technologies Ltd v. Rockefeller University - Before Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Patents whose priority is governed...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
In Dionex Softron GMBH vs. Agilent Technologies, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision in an interference proceeding to award...more
Addressing the applicability of interference proceedings to patent applications filed after the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) found it proper to declare an...more
On October 1st, Senior Party ToolGen Inc. filed its Motion to Exclude certain evidence presented by Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, "Broad") in Interference No. 106,126. Broad...more
Lest we forget, there are two other interferences proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one of which (Interference No. 106,127) names ToolGen as Senior Party and as Junior Party the University of...more
This blog has previously discussed the effect of several different types of estoppel. See, e.g., Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims, Reminder: Estoppel May Not Preclude Prior-Art Systems, and PGR Estoppel Applies to...more
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. v. UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING RESEARCH - Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Intrinsic evidence is sufficient support for claim construction in an...more
On Monday, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) heard oral argument (remotely) from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT) and Junior Party the University of...more
Federal Circuit Summary - On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s determination of no...more
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from a jury trial, the Federal Circuit addressed numerous issues...more
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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