PTAB Sets Preliminary Motions in Broad v ToolGen Interference | McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
By
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP issued the following announcement on Mar. 1.
Montgomery McCracken is pleased to announce that Erin K. Clarke, Ernest D. Holtzheimer, and Richard L. Moss have been elected to the firm’s partnership. Clarke and Holtzheimer, located in the firm’s Philadelphia office, were associates. Moss, also located in the firm’s Philadelphia office, was of counsel.
“We are proud to welcome these talented lawyers to our partnership,” said Richard M. Simins, Chairman of Montgomery McCracken. “Their promotion is a direct reflection of their significant contributions to the firm’s success, as well as our commitment to developing and recognizing talent within our firm.”
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 1st, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its Order on the Preliminary Motions Lists submitted by Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, CVC ) and Senior Party ToolGen Inc. in Interference No. 106,127. (Somewhat curiously, the Board did not issue an Order in Interference No. 106,126 between The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, Broad ) and Senior Party Toolgen on similar interfering subject matter.)
CVC had requested permission to file six proposed motions (one of which is Motion No. 6 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(a)(4), which seeks judgment based on priority, which was routinely deferred to the Priority Phase of the interference). CVC
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final rule regarding institution, sur replies, and presumptions.
First, the Board changes 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108 and 42.208 to implement
SAS Institute Inc.
v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) by noting that “the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” And these rules also state “the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims.” Finally, all presumptions in favor of petitioner for patent owner evidence submitted with a patent owner preliminary response have been removed from the rules.
RPX focuses on real party in interest and the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time bar. Here, the Chief, Deputy Chief, and Vice Chief Judge of the Board issued the decision. In terminating and IPR, the Board noted that the Federal Circuit remanded this case after holding the petitioner was time-barred because the petitioner’s client was an unnamed real party-in-interest that had been served with an infringement complaint more than one year before filing the petition.