PTAB Decision Finding Inventor’s Testimony of Conception Not Corroborated Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

NFC Tech., LLC, Appellant v. Joseph Matal, Performing the Functions & Duties of the Under Sec’y of Commerce for Intellectual Prop. & Dir., U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Intervenor: Sept. 20, 2017.  Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes.   Takeaway: The sufficiency of evidence corroborating an inventor’s testimony of conception of …

Non-Profit Organization Appellee Described as Representing the Public Interest Not Excluded from Appearing in Court to Defend a PTAB Decision

PERSONAL AUDIO v. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: August 7, 2017.  Before Newman, Clevenger, and O’Malley   Takeaway: A non-profit organization appellee described as representing the public interest is not excluded from appearing in court to defend a PTAB decision in view of the Consumer Watchdog decision with the appellant satisfying the …

Stanford University’s Loss in Interferences of Three Patents Covering Testing Methods for Fetal Aneuploidies for Lack of Written Description is Vacated

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Jun. 27, 2017, Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen.   Takeaway: The Federal Circuit declined to reconsider its decision in Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. …

Enablement from a Provisional Application Must Be Supported by the Disclosure and Not Require Undue Experimentation by a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

STORER v. CLARK: June 21, 2017.  Before Prost, Newman, and Dyk.   Takeaway: In order for a non-provisional patent application to be enabled by the provisional patent application from which it takes priority, the disclosure in the provisional patent application must enable one having ordinary skill to produce the claimed …

Unsupported Declaration by an Interested Party is Insufficient to Remove § 102(e) Prior Art Reference

EMERACHEM HOLDINGS, LLC, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.: No. 2016-1984; June 15, 2017.  Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Takeaway: An uncorroborated declaration by an interested inventor may not be sufficient to show that a reference is not “by another” for the purposes of removing the reference as prior art …