Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Retired Judges File Amicus Brief in Support of Judge Newman
- Hikma v. Amarin at the Supreme Court: The Parties’ Opening Briefs
- Teva Pharmaceuticals International v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- USPTO Extends Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!)
- USPTO Announces That It Has Turned the Corner on Unexamined Application Backlog
about
Category: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On January 9th, Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed a Motion in Opposition to Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") Substantive Motion No. 3 in support of the Patent Trial and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Continuing explication of the motions submitted on January 9th to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Interference No. 106155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One of the briefs filed on January 9th in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") was the Broad's Opposition to CVC's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — January 9th was a busy day at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On that day no fewer than five substantive briefs were filed in Interference No. 106,115, two by Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad"), and three by Junior…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Michael Borella — Over five and a half years on from the Supreme Court's Alice vs. CLS Bank ruling, patentees, patent professionals, judges, and USPTO personnel are still wrestling with what it means for an invention to be eligible for patenting. This is especially true for software-related innovations. Despite the software-driven digital economy accounting…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — All interferences have filings that are either kept confidential or are entirely procedural in nature. While there is little substantive to discuss, acknowledging them serves the purpose of keeping track of the proceedings; the following papers have been filed in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In early November, Senior Party the Broad Institute (along with Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) filed their response to Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") Opposition to the Broad's Substantive Motion No. 1 in Interference No. 105,166. Pursuant…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As previously discussed, Senior Party The Broad Institute (joined by Harvard University and MIT) on October 14th filed Substantive Motion No 2 (to substitute the count) in the current interference over CRISPR technology (No. 106,115). Count 1 of the interference as declared is: An engineered, programmable, non-naturally occurring Type II…
Patent Docs 