37 CFR 41.208 - Content of substantive and responsive motions
| Cite as | 37 CFR 41.208 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
51 practice notes
-
Cytologic Inc v. Gmbh, Civil Action No. 08-978(CKK)
...has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief." 8 In addition, although not cited by the Board, 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b)—which governs the requirements for substantive motions filed in patent interferences (as opposed to contested cases in general) and serves......
-
Sears Ecological Applications v. Mli Associates, No. 6:07-CV-145 (DNH/GHL).
...patents issued and the claims made prior to the one-year anniversary of the issuance of the same patents. (Id. at 36-37 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b)).) Under this framework, the Board concluded that original claims 3 and 5 of the '975 application were not materially different from amended ......
-
University of Western Australia v. Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden, Patent Interference 106
...Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 37 S.Ct. 82, 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). 134 S.Ct. at 2129. UWA, who bears the burden of proof (37 CFR § 41.208(b)), must therefore establish that AZL's claims do not inform those skilled in the art of the scope of the claims with "reasonable certainty.......
-
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civ. No. 08-166-SLR.
...with appropriate evidence, such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the relief sought. The burden of proof is on the movant." 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b). "If the examiner-in-chief's rulings on the preliminary motions do not terminate the interference," General Instrument, 995 F.2d at 212, the ......
Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
-
Cytologic Inc v. Gmbh, Civil Action No. 08-978(CKK)
...has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief." 8 In addition, although not cited by the Board, 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b)—which governs the requirements for substantive motions filed in patent interferences (as opposed to contested cases in general) and serves......
-
Sears Ecological Applications v. Mli Associates, No. 6:07-CV-145 (DNH/GHL).
...patents issued and the claims made prior to the one-year anniversary of the issuance of the same patents. (Id. at 36-37 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b)).) Under this framework, the Board concluded that original claims 3 and 5 of the '975 application were not materially different from amended ......
-
University of Western Australia v. Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden, Patent Interference 106
...Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 37 S.Ct. 82, 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). 134 S.Ct. at 2129. UWA, who bears the burden of proof (37 CFR § 41.208(b)), must therefore establish that AZL's claims do not inform those skilled in the art of the scope of the claims with "reasonable certainty.......
-
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civ. No. 08-166-SLR.
...with appropriate evidence, such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the relief sought. The burden of proof is on the movant." 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(b). "If the examiner-in-chief's rulings on the preliminary motions do not terminate the interference," General Instrument, 995 F.2d at 212, the ......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
-
PTAB Sets Preliminary Motions in CVC v. ToolGen Interference
...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 Motion No. 1 u......
-
CVC Files Motion No. 3 in Opposition to Broad's Substantive Motion No. 3 to De-designate Claims as Not Corresponding to Count No. 1
...and moreover that the Broad had not satisfied its burden that it is entitled to the relief requested under 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(b) and 41.208(b). And the Broad will not be able to meet this burden, CVC argues, because a claim to a species (single-molecule guide RNA CRISPR embodiments) antici......
-
PTAB Sets Preliminary Motions in Broad v. ToolGen Interference
...interfering subject matter.) Broad had requested permission to file seven proposed motions (one of which is Motion No. 7 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). Broad Motion No. 1 37 C.F......
-
Challenges in Amending Claims in an IPR: The Evolving Burden on a Patent Owner
...the Board has long applied a rule stating that a party moving to add or amend a claim must show that the claim is patentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(c)(1). The extent of the burden of showing that a proposed claim is patentable in IPR proceedings was explained by the Board in Idle Free Sys.......
Request a trial to view additional results