Tag Archives: Interference

PTAB Holds Oral Hearings In Tecfidera Patent IPR and Interference

On November 30, 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held oral hearings in two different inter partes proceedings involving the Biogen Tecfidera® patent with the latest expiation date. First, it heard arguments in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) brought by Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable Drugs, and then it heard … Continue reading this entry

Interference Statute Does Not Require Diligence For Re-Presenting Claims

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 after originally presented claims were abandoned were not time-barred by the statute. Although the decision was non-precedential, because it reversed a decision … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Holds Full Sequence Not Required For Invention Of DNA

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 nucleotide sequence at the time. Because the subject matter at issue relates to cDNA, it remains patent-eligible under the … Continue reading this entry

Pinpointing Invention Conception Date In A Patent Interference

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 the law of conception, it highlights the issues that can arise when an inventor changes employment before … Continue reading this entry

The Limited Scope Of The New Derivation Proceedings

Under the first-to-file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), the USPTO no longer will institute interference proceedings in order to determine who was the first person to invent a claimed invention. While an applicant will be able to petition the USPTO to institute a derivation proceeding, the statute and implementing regulations provide for such … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Confirms That U.S. Priority Claim Must Be Considered When Assessing Interference Timeliness

In Loughlin v. Ling, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that had canceled the sole claim of Loughlin’s patent in an interference proceeding. The decision turned on the interplay between the interference statute of limitations (35 USC § 135(b)(2)) and the domestic priority statute (35 USC … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Applies "Four Corners" Test For Incorporation By Reference To Support Priority Date

In Hollmer v. Harari, the Federal Circuit clarified the requirements for incorporation by reference of subject matter required to support a priority claim under 35 USC § 120. The decision underscores the care that must be taken in a seemingly clerical matter to preserve substantive patent rights.… Continue reading this entry

Time Is Running Out To Comment On Proposed Rules For USPTO Board Patent Trial Proceedings

The deadline for submitting public comments on the USPTO’s proposed rules for patent trial proceedings is next week, April 9 and 10, 2012.  Specifically, public comments on the seven Federal Register notices containing the USPTO’s rulemaking proposals are due as follows: Rules of Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review … Continue reading this entry

Be Aware Of The Ides Of March

The “first-to-file” provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) take effect on March 16, 2013. Here, I highlight a few reasons why many applicants will not want their patent applications to be subject to the new version of 35 USC § 102, and why all applicants—and their patent counsel—should be aware of the significance of … Continue reading this entry

What Happens When Interfering Applications Straddle The First-To-File Effective Date?

It has been a while since I’ve taken an in-depth look at the first-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act. This interesting fact pattern comes from Andrea Levesque, IP Counsel at ARC Energy, and relates to the interference provisions that survive the general March 16, 2013 effective date of the first-to-file provisions.… Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court De Novo Review In Section 146 Action

In Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that a district court is to undertake de novo review when new evidence is introduced in an interference action under 35 USC § 146.… Continue reading this entry

The First-To-File Poison Pill

Now that we’ve been studying the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act for a few weeks, some of its subtle intricacies are coming to light. One of the more complex provisions relates to the effective date and applicability of the first-to-file provisions of new 35 USC § 102.… Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Won't Let Creative Compounds Muscle Its Way Into Priority Of Invention

In Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Laboratories, the Federal Circuit clarified that the “clear and convincing” burden of proof applies to an allegation of prior invention unless an action is brought under 35 USC § 291 or the parties identify and agree on common claimed subject matter and seek an adjudication of priority.  While Patent … Continue reading this entry

How Will Patent Reform Solve The USPTO Backlog?

Last week, The Kojo Nnamdi Show on Washington, D.C. public radio station WAMU had two programs about patent reform. On Tuesday, there was a panel discussion on “Innovation and Patent Reform.” On Wednesday, Kojo talked with USPTO Director David Kappos about “Updating the U.S. Patent Office.” While I usually cringe when mainstream media discusses patent issues, … Continue reading this entry

Written Description: When Too Much Is Not Enough

In Goeddel v. Sugano, the Federal Circuit determined that a priority application that disclosed the gene encoding a full-length “precursor” protein did not constitute constructive reduction to practice of interference counts that focused on the “mature” protein. This decision is an important reminder that a disclosure that might be effective to render a claim obvious … Continue reading this entry