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 …

Federal Circuit Affirms the PTAB’s Decision Finding the Patent Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Where the Patent Owner Did Not Demonstrate that the Board Violated the Administrative Procedure Act Requirements of Notice and an Opportunity to Respond

NOVARTIS AG, MITSUBISHI PHARMA CORP., v. TORRENT PHARM. LTD.:  April 12, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll. (precedential). Takeaways: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not violate the requirements of notice and an opportunity to respond found in the Administrative Procedure Act when it relied on a prior art …

Shoulder Replacement Apparatus Not Anticipated by Prior Art Requiring Modification to Satisfy Claim Language

IN RE: CHUDIK: March 27, 2017. Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Takeaway: A prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate claims. Procedural Posture: In an appeal from the USPTO where the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Chudik’s claims as anticipated by two …