Oliver R. Ashe, Jr.

Principal / Founder

Email: oashe@ashepc.com

Download VCard

Education

• The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, J.D.
  (magna cum laude)
• The Catholic University of America, B.S. in Biology

Experience

Recognized by IP Law and Business as one of the top 50 intellectual property attorneys under the age of 45, Mr. Ashe serves his clients in a variety of unique roles related to upper-level proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Mr. Ashe is a member of Post Grant Cancellation Subcommittee, Patent Office Inter Partes Proceedings (U.S.) Committee.

Lead and Backup Lead Counsel.   Mr. Ashe has extensive experience serving as Lead and Backup Lead Counsel in interference proceedings before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.   As a well-recognized interference practitioner, clients retain Mr. Ashe to serve as Lead or Backup Lead Counsel in high profile and complex interference proceedings, which often involve co-pending litigation, reexaminations, and/or foreign opposition proceedings.   Mr. Ashe's intimate knowledge of the rules and practices governing contested cases before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences will also be particularly well suited to upcoming forms of inter partes reexaminations, ex parte appeals, and future post-grant cancellation proceedings, each of which will have procedural frameworks modeled after current interference procedures.

Consultant.   Clients often retain Mr. Ashe to assist their existing interference and/or litigation counsel in proceedings pending before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and/or before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.   As a result of his extensive leadership experience in complex interference proceedings, Mr. Ashe is a well-seasoned team player who effectively integrates into existing legal teams to assist in developing and executing complex case strategies.   Mr. Ashe also serves in advisory roles in interference appeals in district courts under 35 U.S.C. § 146.

Advisor to In-House Counsel.   Mr. Ashe regularly serves as an advisor to in-house counsel regarding basic and advanced interference matters, including: compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) and related claim-copying strategies; strategies for provoking, avoiding, and/or settling interference proceedings; and assisting in the management and coordination of complex case strategies involving multiple parties, proceedings, and law firms.   Mr. Ashe also assists in-house counsel in making inventorship determinations and resolving internal inventorship disputes, i.e., issues that will have renewed significance under the first-inventor-to-file provisions and/or derivation proceedings under current patent reform legislation.

Admissions

• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Supreme Court of Virginia
• District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Affliations

• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
• American Bar Association (ABA)
• Federal Circuit Bar Association
• Northern Virginia Patent Lawyers Club

Representative Publications & Cases

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (and Related Cases)

Sepracor, Inc. v. Wyeth (Interference No. 105,685)

Interference Counsel for Sepracor, Inc. in patent interference proceedings involving a pharmaceutical compound.  Related Cases:  Jerussi v. Hadfield, Interference No. 105,671; and Hadfield v. Jerussi, Interference No. 105,689.

Shafer v. Omura (Interference No. 105,678)
Backup Lead interference counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT AG in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.

Raz v. Krieg (Interference No. 105,674)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences.  Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference No. 105,526; Raz v. Krieg, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245.

Lyman v. Lee (Interference No. 105,630)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving VEGF-related protein (VRP).

Baekkeskov v. Atkinson (Interference No. 105,576)
Backup Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the early detection of the onset of insulin-dependent diabetes.

Cabilly v. Boss (Interference No. 105,531)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving recombinant antibodies (Cabilly III patent).  Related Case: Boss v. Cabilly, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1264 (Cabilly III patent). See also (relating to Cabilly II patent), Cabilly v. Boss, Interference No. 102,572, 55 USPQ2d 1238 (BPAI 1998), 60 USPQ2d 1752 (BPAI 2001); Genentech, Inc. v. Celltech Therapeutics, Ltd., Case No. C98-3926 (MMC) (N.D. Cal. 2001); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 2:03-cv-02567-MRP-CT (C.D. Cal. 2008); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 04-1300 and 04-1384, 76 USPQ2d 1914, 427 F3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 05-608, 81 USPQ2d 1225, 549 US 118, 127 SCt 764 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007); Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-03573-MRP-CT (C.D. Cal.); and Reexamination Numbers: 90/007,542 & 90/007,859.

Raz v. Krieg (Interference No. 105,526)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences.  Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference No. 105,674; Raz v. Krieg, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245.

Ashkenazi v. Browning (Interference No. 105,513)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) polypeptide sequence known as "TWEAK."

Garner v. Quate (Interference No. 105,455)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for deprotecting reaction sites on a substrate.  Related Case: In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Quate v. Cerrina (Interference No. 105,446)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving an optical lithography system.

Garner v. Quate (Interference No. 105,445)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of patterning on a substrate within a reaction chamber.

Bedilion v. Besemer (Interference No. 105,440)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving an apparatus for mixing fluids in the synthesis of polymer arrays.

Goldberg v. Bass (Interference No. 105,424)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of synthesizing an array of biopolymers.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1532.

Goldberg v. Bass (Interference No. 105,422)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of synthesizing an array of chemical compounds.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1519.

Adang v. Umbeck (Interference No. 105,367)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving transformed cotton plantlets.  Related Case: Adang v. Umbeck, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1120.

Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Interference No. 105,361)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving agonist and antagonist antibodies to Death Receptor 5. Related Cases: Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:07-cv-00780, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2008-1418 (Interference No. 105,240); Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:07-cv-00526 (Interference No. 105,381); Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:08-cv-00166, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1182 (Interference No. 105,361); and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:09-cv-00389 (Interference No. 105,380).

Barany v. McGall (Interference No. 105,351)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving oligonucleotide analogue probes or targets.

Raz v. Platt (Interference No. 105,350)
Backup lead interference counsel for Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Wayne State University in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the therapeutic treatment of cancer in mammals.

Sawhley v. Schwartz (Interference No. 105,317)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of closing a retinal break and preventing proliferative vitreoretinopathy in a mammalian eye.

Schembri v. Besemer (Interference No. 105,285)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving methodology used in the preparation of DNA arrays.   Related Cases: Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., Civil Case No.: C06-05958-JW-PVT (N.D. Cal 2008), Agilent v. Affymetrix, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2008-1466.

Grande v. Bonaventure (Interference No. 105,283)
Lead interference counsel for Salomon, S.A. in a patent interference proceeding involving a ventilated sport shoe.

Hammond v. Leiden (Interference No. 105,217)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of stimulating coronary collateral vessel development comprising delivery of a replication deficient adenovirus vector to the myocardium of a patient by intracoronary injection. Related Case: Leiden v. Hammond, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1023; Related publication: Xenia P. Kobylarz, Back From the Dead, IP Law & Business, November 2007, at 32.

Gray v. Westbrook (Interference No. 105,207)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving a composition for detecting chromosomal aberrations involving the BCR and ABL genes.  Related Case: Dietz-Band v. Gray, Interference No. 105,208.

Sernyk v. DeBonte (Interference No. 105,163)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in patent interference proceeding involving improved canola oil having specified oleic, linoleic and linoleic acid contents and ratios.   Related Cases: Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39164 (Fed. Cir. December 20, 2005) and Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 1359, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Lanuza v. Fan (Interference No. 105,162)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving improved canola oil having specified oleic, linoleic and linoleic acid contents and ratios.   Related Cases: Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39164 (Fed. Cir. December 20, 2005) and Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 1359, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Kaloyeros v. Hautala (Interference No. 105,161)
Lead interference counsel for Gelest, Inc. and The Research Foundation of State University of New York in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the chemical vapor deposition of a film comprising tantalum.

Agilent v. Affymetrix (Interference No. 105,089)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving an assay plate for the detection of oligonucleotides.

Matsumoto v. Schaap (Interference 104,478)
Represented Lumigen, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding relating to dioxetane chemiluminescence.

Young v. Cotrel (Interference No. 104,423)
Represented Sepracor, Inc. in a pharmaceutical patent interference proceeding relating to zopiclone.

Gawron-Burke v. Payne (Interference No. 103,899)
Backup Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA encoding a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. Related Case: Monsanto v. Mycogen, Civil Case No.: 01CV353-B(POR).

Bamberger v. Cheruvu (Interference No. 103,844)
Counsel for Mobil Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a gas phase process for producing a copolymer of ethylene and alpha olefin. Related Case: Mobil Oil Corp. v. Exxon Corp., Case No. 1:96-cv-01603-TSE (E.D. Va).

Barton v. Fischhoff v. Adang (Interference No. 103,781)
Lead interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.   Related Cases: Barton v. Adang, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 97-1491, 49 USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Mycogen Plant Science v. Monsanto Co., Civil Case No. 95-CV-0653J (LSP), Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2000-1127; Mycogen v. Monsanto, Civil Case No. 96-505-RRM, Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2000-1001 and 2000-1051; and Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Civil Case No. 96-133-RRM, Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2000-1002, 2000-1003, and 2000-1050; Mycogen v. Monsanto, Civil Case No.: 1:04-CV-0573DFH-WTL.

Fukuda et al. v. Jolley (Interference No 103,526)
Counsel for Lubrizol Corporation in a multi-party patent interference proceeding involving the development of new lubricants for HFC-based cooling systems (a "drop-in" replacement for the commonly used CFC R12).   Related Case: In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 137, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

McGraw et al. v. Jolley (Interference No 103,525)
Counsel for Lubrizol Corporation in a multi-party patent interference proceeding involving the development of new lubricants for HFC-based cooling systems (a "drop-in" replacement for the commonly used CFC R12).   Related Case: In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 137, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Fischhoff v. Adang (Interference No. 103,324)
Lead interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving tomato plants that were genetically modified to incorporate a bacterial gene that confers insert resistance.  Related Case: Adang v. Fischhoff, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 01-1169, 62 USPQ2d 1504, 286 F3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.(Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1182)

Appellate co-counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving agonist and antagonist antibodies to Death Receptor 5.  Related Cases: Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:08-cv-00166; and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Interference No. 105,361.

Boss v. Cabilly (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1264)
Appellate co-counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving recombinant antibodies (Cabilly III patent).  Related Case: Cabilly v. Boss, Interference No. 105,531.

Raz v. Krieg (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245)
Lead appellate interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences. Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference Nos. 105,526 and 105,674.

Goldberg v. Bass (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1532)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA array methodology.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Interference No. 105,424.

Goldberg v. Bass (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1519)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA array methodology.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Interference No. 105,422.

Adang v. Umbeck (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1120)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences) in a patent interference proceeding involving transformed cotton plantlets.  Related Case: Adang v. Umbeck, Interference No. 105,367.

Leiden v. Hammond (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1023)
Lead appellate interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in patent interference proceeding involving a method of stimulating coronary collateral vessel development comprising delivery of a replication deficient adenovirus vector to the myocardium of a patient by intracoronary injection.  Related Case: Hammond v. Leiden, Interference No. 105,217, 77 USPQ2d 1319 (BPAI 2005).

Adang v. Fischhoff (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2001-1169)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.  Related Case: Fischhoff v. Adang, Interference No. 103,324.

Barton v. Adang (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 1997-1491)
Backup appellate interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.  Related Case: Barton v. Fischhoff v. Adang, Interference No. 103,781.

Speaking Engagements

“Interference Appeals to the Federal Circuit ” - Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Patent Interferences Rules and Practice Conference
(Washington, D.C., December 2, 2008)

“Proving Priority” - Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Patent Interferences Rules and Practice Conference
(Washington, D.C., December 5, 2006)

“Interference Practice: 2005” - Northern Virginia Patent Lawyers Club
(Virginia, March 29, 2005)

“Modern Interference Practice” - Interference Seminar - Greenblum & Bernstein's Patent Litigation Seminar Series
(Reston, VA, March 18, 2003)

“Modern Interference Practice” - Advanced Biotechnology/Chemical Patent Practice Seminar (AIPLA)
(Washington, D.C., 2000)