Category Archives: Interference

FWP IP APS v. Biogen MA, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2109 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN October 24, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board interference decision of no WD of claimed MS treatment in FWP’s specification affirmed (e.g., “the inventors…had not yet firmly concluded”). Summary: FWP appealed Board interference decision that … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Regents of The University of California, University of Vienna, Emmanuelle Charpentier (“UC”) v. Broad Institute, Inc., Mass. Inst. Tech., Fellows of Harvard College (“Broad”)

Docket No. 2017-1907 PROST, SCHALL, MOORE September 10, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel affirmed the Board’s judgment of no interference-in-fact between UC’s and Broad’s claims, also stating that this “is not a ruling on the validity of either set of … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Obviousness | Leave a comment

The General Hospital Corporation v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1012 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO May 4, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction affirmed but denial of GHC’s motion to introduce a new claim vacated and remanded. Summary: GHC appealed PTAB dismissal of an interference (with Sienna’s US 8,821,941) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Obviousness | Leave a comment

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Docket No. 2016-22260 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN June 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of lack of written description affirmed (“a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [WD]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