News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Trial and Appeal Board Interference Proceeding

McDermott Will & Emery

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., No. 22-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)

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

Knobbe Martens

AIA Patents May Not Be Challenged in Interference Proceedings

Knobbe Martens on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries

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

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Federal Circuit Supports Flexible Implementation of the Rule of Reason Approach to Support a Finding of Sufficient Corroboration...

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Post-AIA Patents Are Not Shielded from Interferences

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Meanwhile . . . ToolGen Files Substantive Motion No. 1 in Interference with CVC

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

Jones Day

Interference Estoppel Precludes All Arguments That Could Have Been Raised

Jones Day on

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

Knobbe Martens

Not a Cowboy Claim Construction, University of Wyoming’s Patent Adequately Defined Claim Term

Knobbe Martens on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

PTAB Hears Oral Argument on Motions in Interference No. 106,115

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

Knobbe Martens

UC v. Broad Institute: No Interference-In-Fact in CRISPR Genome Editing Applications

Knobbe Martens on

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

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

McDermott Will & Emery

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

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

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

McDermott Will & Emery

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

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

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide