Inventorship determinations have been called, in some of their incarnations, "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law." Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Indus., 352 F. Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D. Pa....more
It is well to recall that the battle over inventorship and thus ownership of CRISPR technology is not limited to the parties in the various interferences surrounding the Doudna and Zhang patents and applications (see "CRISPR...more
Thomas Steed, Sourav Bhattacharya, and Sandeep Seshadrijois (collectively "Steed") filed a patent application entitled "Web-Integrated On-Line Financial Database System and Method for Debt Recovery," on April 6, 2004, with...more
K-40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc. - Addressing the sufficiency of corroborating evidence to prove earlier reduction to practice, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that an inventor’s testimony regarding...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