37 CFR 41.121 - Motions
| Cite as | 37 CFR 41.121 |
-
- 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
90 practice notes
-
Cytologic Inc v. Gmbh, Civil Action No. 08-978(CKK)
...section 135(b) motion. Id. at 8. As the Court understands Cytologic's argument, it does not dispute the Board's holding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) that Cytologic, "[a]s the moving party, [ ] bears the burden of proving that [Biopher-esis]'s involved claims 23-41 are barred under U.S.......
-
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 2015-1177.
...35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (referring to claim "determined to be valid and patentable").12 The language of § 42.20(c) is nearly identical to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) (2010), a pre-existing provision governing the few pre-AIA contested cases, such as interferences. The contested-case regulation, when a......
-
Enzo Therapeutics v. Yeda Research and Dev. Co., Civil Action No. 2:06cv377.
...18, 2005, without according Enzo the benefit of the '215 application filing date. On July 1, 2005, Enzo filed a motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) Page 583 the Board to revive the '215 application and to accord Enzo the benefit of the April 17, 1981, filing date on the basis that a......
-
Enzo Therapeutics v. Yeda Research and Dev. Co., Civil Action No. 2:06cv377.
...'215 application. On July 1, 2005, Enzo submitted two filings critical to this case. First is the "Substantive Motion Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) to be Granted Benefit of an Earlier Application" ("Motion for Benefit"),4 wherein Enzo requested that the Board revive the '215 applicat......
Request a trial to view additional results
63 cases
-
Cytologic Inc v. Gmbh, Civil Action No. 08-978(CKK)
...section 135(b) motion. Id. at 8. As the Court understands Cytologic's argument, it does not dispute the Board's holding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) that Cytologic, "[a]s the moving party, [ ] bears the burden of proving that [Biopher-esis]'s involved claims 23-41 are barred under U.S.......
-
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 2015-1177.
...35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (referring to claim "determined to be valid and patentable").12 The language of § 42.20(c) is nearly identical to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b) (2010), a pre-existing provision governing the few pre-AIA contested cases, such as interferences. The contested-case regulation, when a......
-
Enzo Therapeutics v. Yeda Research and Dev. Co., Civil Action No. 2:06cv377.
...18, 2005, without according Enzo the benefit of the '215 application filing date. On July 1, 2005, Enzo filed a motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) Page 583 the Board to revive the '215 application and to accord Enzo the benefit of the April 17, 1981, filing date on the basis that a......
-
Enzo Therapeutics v. Yeda Research and Dev. Co., Civil Action No. 2:06cv377.
...'215 application. On July 1, 2005, Enzo submitted two filings critical to this case. First is the "Substantive Motion Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(1) to be Granted Benefit of an Earlier Application" ("Motion for Benefit"),4 wherein Enzo requested that the Board revive the '215 applicat......
Request a trial to view additional results
24 firm's commentaries
-
Broad Files Priority Motion in CRISPR Interference*
...v. Boss, 55 USPQ2d 1238, 1254-5 (BPAI 2000), citing Boises v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-542, 30 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 1994); 37 C.F.R. §41.121. This showing must be by a preponderance of the evidence. Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1989), citing O......
-
PTAB Denies St. Regis Mohawk Tribe's Motion to Terminate IPRs based on Sovereign Immunity
...interests in the challenged patents. The Tribe's Motion is therefore denied. The Board's decision is consistent with Board rule, 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b), that the proponent of a motion bears the burden of establishing their right to the relief requested. It is also consistent with the Board's......
-
PTAB Redeclares CRISPR Interference and Grants Leave for Some (But Not All) of Parties' Proposed Motions
...judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case" over the earlier-concluded interference (No. 106,048). The Broad's Motion 1 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(a)(1)(iii) and 41.208(a)(1) is for judgment based on interference estoppel, citing MPEP § 2308.03(b): "A judgment of no interference-in-f......
-
CRISPR Interference Parties Propose Motions
...challenging the Broad's entitlement to eukaryotic CRISPR), Junior Party's Motion 1 is an "expedited" miscellaneous motion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(3) for benefit of an earlier non-provisional application and for the Board to redeclare the interference with CVC as the Senior party. The ba......
Request a trial to view additional results