Ashe P.C. - Intellectual Property Agreements - Interference

Interferences

ASHE, P.C.
11440 Isaac Newton Square North
Suite 210
Reston, VA 20190
Tel: 703-467-9001
Fax: 703-467-9002
info@ashepc.com

Interferences

An interference proceeding is an inter partes contested case conducted before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Interferences are routinely used to resolve patentability and priority/inventorship disputes between parties.

Statistics

Return to Top

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 102(g) - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

35 U.S.C. § 104 - Invention made abroad

(a) IN GENERAL.-

(1) PROCEEDINGS.-In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365 of this title.

(2) RIGHTS. -If an invention was made by a person, civil or military

(A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,

(B) while domiciled in a NAFTA country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that NAFTA country, or

(C) while domiciled in a WTO member country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that WTO member country, that person shall be entitled to the same rights of priority in the United States with respect to such invention as if such invention had been made in the United States, that NAFTA country, or that WTO member country, as the case may be.

(3) USE OF INFORMATION.-To the extent that any information in a NAFTA country or a WTO member country concerning knowledge, use, or other activity relevant to proving or disproving a date of invention has not been made available for use in a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, a court, or any other competent authority to the same extent as such information could be made available in the United States, the Director, court, or such other authority shall draw appropriate inferences, or take other action permitted by statute, rule, or regulation, in favor of the party that requested the information in the proceeding.

(b) DEFINITIONS. -As used in this section

(1) The term “NAFTA country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(4) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and

(2) The term “WTO member country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

35 U.S.C. § 116 - Inventors

When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.

If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. The Director, on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes, may grant a patent to the inventor making the application, subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application.

Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Director may permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.

35 U.S.C. § 135 - Interferences

(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.

(b)

(1) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted.

(2) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an application published under section 122(b) of this title may be made in an application filed after the application is published only if the claim is made before 1 year after the date on which the application is published.

(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding. The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice. Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

(d) Parties to a patent interference, within such time as may be specified by the Director by regulation, may determine such contest or any aspect thereof by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9 to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director from determining patentability of the invention involved in the interference.

35 U.S.C. § 141 - Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

An applicant dissatisfied with the decision in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 of this title may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. By filing such an appeal the applicant waives his or her right to proceed under section 145 of this title. A patent owner, or a third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, who is in any reexamination proceeding dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 may appeal the decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on the interference may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but such appeal shall be dismissed if any adverse party to such interference, within twenty days after the appellant has filed notice of appeal in accordance with section 142 of this title, files notice with the Director that the party elects to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 146 of this title. If the appellant does not, within thirty days after filing of such notice by the adverse party, file a civil action under section 146, the decision appealed from shall govern the further proceedings in the case.

35 U.S.C. § 146 - Civil action in case of interference

Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints or as provided in section 141 of this title, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and such appeal is pending or has been decided. In such suits the record in the Patent and Trademark Office shall be admitted on motion of either party upon the terms and conditions as to costs, expenses, and the further cross-examination of the witnesses as the court imposes, without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony. The testimony and exhibits of the record in the Patent and Trademark Office when admitted shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in the suit.

Such suit may be instituted against the party in interest as shown by the records of the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the decision complained of, but any party in interest may become a party to the action. If there be adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts not embraced within the same state, or an adverse party residing in a foreign country, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and may issue summons against the adverse parties directed to the marshal of any district in which any adverse party resides. Summons against adverse parties residing in foreign countries may be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The Director shall not be a necessary party but he shall be notified of the filing of the suit by the clerk of the court in which it is filed and shall have the right to intervene. Judgment of the court in favor of the right of an applicant to a patent shall authorize the Director to issue such patent on the filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment and on compliance with the requirements of law.

35 U.S.C. § 256 - Correction of named inventor

Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.

The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.

35 U.S.C. § 291 - Interfering patents

The owner of an interfering patent may have relief against the owner of another by civil action, and the court may adjudge the question of validity of any of the interfering patents, in whole or in part. The provisions of the second paragraph of section 146 of this title shall apply to actions brought under this section.

Return to Top

Interference Rules

Return to Top

Interference Forms

Return to Top

Recently Declared Interferences

Interference No. 105,734

  • Patent No. 7,510,876 (Cythera, Inc. and Novocell, Inc.)

  • Application No. 11/960,477 (Geron Corporation)

  • DEFINITIVE ENDODERM

  • Declared:  December 10, 2009

Interference No. 105,733

  • Patent No. 6,703,228 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Application No. 10/391,090 (Catalyst Assets, LLC)

  • METHODS AND PRODUCTS RELATED TO GENOTYPING AND DNA ANALYSIS

  • Declared:  December 3, 2009

Interference No. 105,729

  • Patent No. 6,569,443 (InSite Vision Incorporated)

  • Application No. 11/801,345 (The Regents of the University of California)

  • TOPICAL TREATMENT OR PREVENTION OF OCULAR INFECTIONS

  • Declared:  November 30, 2009

Interference No. 105,705

  • Patent No. 6,180,370 (PDL Biopharma Inc.)
  • Application No. 10/938,117 (UCB Pharma S.A.)
  • HUMANZIED ANTIBODIES
  • Declared:  November 23, 2009

 

Interference No. 105,728

  • Patent No. 6,258,999 (Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.) 
  • Application No. 11/151,700 (Monsanto Company)
  • STABLE TRANSFORMATION OF PLANT CELLS
  • Declared:  November 18, 2009

Interference No. 105,694

  • Patent No. 6,284,242 (The Regents of the University of Michigan)
  • Application No. 11/698,121 (Universite Laval)
  • METHOD FOR ENHANCING MYOBLAST MIGRATION AND INVASION IN THE CONTEXT OF GENE THERAPY
  • Declared:  November 9, 2009

Interference No. 105,722

  • Patent No. 6,372,467 (Harvard College)  
  • Application No. 11/004,840 (Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research) 
  • P54S6K AND P85S6K GENES, PROTEINS, PRIMERS, PROBES, AND DETECTION METHODS
  • Declared:  November 2, 2009

Interference No. 105,726

  • Patent No. 6,706,184 (3M Innovative Properties Company) 
  • Application No. 10/414,553 (Millipore Corporation) 
  • UNSUPPORTED MULTIZONE MICROPOROUS MEMBRANCE
  • Declared:  October 29, 2009

Interference No. 105,723

  • Patent Nos. 7,495,080 and 7,521,537 (ZymoGenetics, Inc.) 
  • Application No. 11/548,639 (Genentech, Inc.)
  • CYTOKINE RECEPTOR ZCYTOR17
  • Declared:  October 21, 2009

Interference No. 105,712

  • Patent No. 6,406,705 (Dynavax Technologies Corporation)
  • Application No. 11/360,141 (University of Iowa Research Foundation; Coley Pharmaceutical GMBH; and Ottawa Health Research Institute)
  • USE OF NUCLEIC ACIDS CONTAINING UNMETHYLATED CPG DINUCLEOTIDE AS AN ADJUVANT
  • Declared:  October 14, 2009

Interference No. 105,724

  • Patent No. 7,386,331 (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) 
  • Application No. 11/009,718 (LG Electronics, Inc.) 
  • BI-DIRECTIONAL SLIDING-TYPE PROTABLE TERMINAL
  • Declared:  October 7, 2009

Interference No. 105,718

  • Patent No. 5,939,320 (New York University) 
  • Application No. 10/439,845 (US Department of Health and Human Services) 
  • G-COUPLED RECEPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MACROPHAGETROPHIC HIV, AND DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC USES THEREOF
  • Declared:  September 25, 2009

Interference No. 105,713

  • Patent No. 7,528,280 (Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.) 
  • Application No. 11/550,430 (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.) 
  • PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF BIPHOSPHONIC ACIDS
  • Declared:  September 9, 2009

Interference No. 105,717

  • Patent No. 6,992,257 (ADC Telecommunications, Inc.) 
  • Application No. 10/863,322 (Switchcraft, Inc.)
  • ELECTRONIC SIGNAL TRANSMISSION AND SWITCHING JACK
  • Declared:  September 3, 2009

Interference No. 105,695

  • Application No. 11/304,585 (Vegenics Ltd.) 
  • Application No. 11/397,289 (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha) 
  • NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCES ENDOCING VEGF-LIKE FACTORS AND USES THEREOF
  • Declared:  August 26, 2009

Interference No. 105,704

  • Patent No. 7,326,411 (Merck Serono SA) 
  • Application No. 10/392,355 (National Institute of Health)
  • USE OF AMINO-TERMINALLY TRUNCATED RANTES TO INHIBIT HIV VIRAL REPLICATION
  • Declared:  August 25, 2009

Interference No. 105,710

  • Patent No. 5,759,808 (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) 
  • Application No. 10/915,490 (BAC IP V.B. and Vrije Universiteit Brussel) 
  • IMMUNOGLOGULINS DEVOID OF LIGHT CHAINS
  • Declared:  August 3, 2009

View Recently Declared Interferences Archives

Return to Top

Copyright © Ashe, P.C.