1 / 4

Interference-in-fact

Interference-in-fact. The Boston Scientific v. Cordis’ Claim Construction Order mentions an interference-in-fact. An Interference-in-fact is like an Interference (no suffix): Both involve the patent term of art interference.

vevina
Download Presentation

Interference-in-fact

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interference-in-fact • The Boston Scientific v. Cordis’ Claim Construction Order mentions an interference-in-fact. • An Interference-in-fact is like an Interference (no suffix): Both involve the patent term of art interference. In patent law this word does not exactly mean “that which comes between so as to be hindrance or obstacle.” However, when two people think they invented the same thing and both want exclusive rights to it, they may be obstacles to each other. • So, what is the term of art “interference”? And how is an interference-in-fact different? Julie Kane – Interference-in-fact

  2. Interference (the term of art) • An interference (regular or “in-fact”) decides the question: who invented first? An interference is a PRIORITY CONTEST. • A regular interference is a proceeding in the Patent Ofice • initiated by an Examiner during examination of a patent application, and • adjudicated by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). When the Examiner identifies another patent or application that claimsthe same invention, s/he declares an interference. Julie Kane – Interference-in-fact

  3. Interferences - Statutes 35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any[thing] NEW and useful … may obtain a patent…. 35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless … (g)(1) … before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by [another] inventor…. 35 USC 135(a): “Whenever an application is made for a patent which … would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared….” “The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions….” Julie Kane – Interference-in-fact

  4. Interference-in-Fact • Begins in a court, not in the Patent Office. 35 USC §291 governs jurisdiction; also appeals (by by cross reference to 35 USC §146, 2nd paragraph). “[I]ts purpose is to enable the court to resolve the problem created by the existence of two or more patents having been issued on the same invention….” Albert v. Kevex Corp., 741 F.2d 396 at 399 [18-5] (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Davis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). • Involves only issued patents. • Can be a stand-alone proceeding, or can arise in infringement litigation Julie Kane – Interference-in-fact

More Related