Category Archives: Interference

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Docket No. 2015-2011 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN June 27, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision of no written description vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred in relying on “conclusions about the Roche 454 platform to conclude that Illumia teaches only … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Richard Storer et al. v. Jeremy Clark and United States (intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1802 (appeal from PTAB No. 105,981) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK June 21, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision that Storer’s (Idenix’s) provisional application was not enabled for the claims affirmed because, e.g., “the art, at least with respect to … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Interference | Leave a comment

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Technology, LLC

Docket No. 2016-22260 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN June 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of lack of written description affirmed (“a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [WD] requirement”). Summary: Purdue appealed PTAB refusal of … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

ULF Bamberg et al. v. Jodi A. Dalvey et al.

Docket No. 2015-1548 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL March 9, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision in an interference that Bamberg’s specification did not disclose the claimed subject matter (“Bamberg…specifically distinguished white layers that melt below 220oC as producing an ‘undesired’ result”) and … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Stephen P. Troy, Jr. v. Samson Manufacturing Corporation

Docket Nos. 2013-1565 PROST, BRYSON, MOORE July 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision regarding § 146 interferences vacated and remaned because US Supreme Court Hyatt decision “permits new evidence to be admitted without regard to whether the issue was raised … Continue reading

Posted in Interference | Leave a comment

Edward Tobinick v. Kjell Olmarker and Bjorn Rydevik

Docket No. 2013-1499 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH May 19, 2014 Brief Summary: PTAB claim construction decision affirmed based on intrinsic evidence and expert testimonry. The lack of written description decision was reversed because the application conveyed “that Tobinick had possession of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Sanofi Aventis v. Pfizer, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1345 NEWMAN, LOURIE, DAVIS November 5, 2013 Brief summary: Pfizer found to have possession of isolated nucleic acid sequence even with errors in sequence that were not corrected until after Sanofi’s priority date. Summary: Sanofi appealed USPTO decision … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Inventorship | Leave a comment