Ashe P.C. - Intellectual Property Agreements - Interference

INTERFERENCE AND DERIVATION

Interference proceedings are used by patent applicants to challenge qualified patent or application claims based on prior invention, derivation, and possibly other patentability grounds.  Derivation proceedings are used by patent applicants to challenge qualified patent or application claims based on derivation by the opponent.

Statistics

Return to Top

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 102(g) - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent (repealed by the AIA effective March 16, 2013)

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

35 U.S.C. § 104 - Invention made abroad (repealed by the AIA effective March 16, 2013)

(a) IN GENERAL.-

(1) PROCEEDINGS.-In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365.

(2) RIGHTS. -If an invention was made by a person, civil or military

(A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,

(B) while domiciled in a NAFTA country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that NAFTA country, or

(C) while domiciled in a WTO member country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that WTO member country, that person shall be entitled to the same rights of priority in the United States with respect to such invention as if such invention had been made in the United States, that NAFTA country, or that WTO member country, as the case may be.

(3) USE OF INFORMATION.-To the extent that any information in a NAFTA country or a WTO member country concerning knowledge, use, or other activity relevant to proving or disproving a date of invention has not been made available for use in a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, a court, or any other competent authority to the same extent as such information could be made available in the United States, the Director, court, or such other authority shall draw appropriate inferences, or take other action permitted by statute, rule, or regulation, in favor of the party that requested the information in the proceeding.

(b) DEFINITIONS. -As used in this section

(1) The term “NAFTA country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(4) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and

(2) The term “WTO member country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

35 U.S.C. § 116 – Inventors

(a) JOINT INVENTIONS.—When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.

(b) OMITTED INVENTOR.—If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application maybe made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. The Director, on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes, may grant a patent to the inventor making the application, subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application.

(c) CORRECTION OF ERRORS INAPPLICATION.—Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through an error an inventor is not named in an application, the Director may permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.

35 U.S.C. § 135 – Interferences (repealed by the AIA effective March 16, 2013)

(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.

(b)

(1) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted.

(2) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim ofan application published under section 122(b) may be made in an application filed after the application is published only if the claim is made before 1 year after the date on which the application is published.

(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding. The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice. Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

(d) Parties to a patent interference, within such time as may be specified by the Director by regulation, may determine such contest or any aspect thereof by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9 to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director from determining patentability of the invention involved in the interference.

35 U.S.C. § 135 – Derivation proceedings (effective March 16, 2013)

(a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.—

   (1) IN GENERAL.-An applicant for patent may file a petition with respect to an invention to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an individual named in an earlier application as the inventor or a joint inventor derived such invention from an individual named in the petitioner's application as the inventor or a joint inventor and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding.

   (2) TIME FOR FILING.-A petition under this section with respect to an invention that is the same or substantially the same invention as a claim contained in a patent issued on an earlier application, or contained in an earlier application when published or deemed published under section 122(b), may not be filed unless such petition may is filed during the 1-year period following the date on which the patent containing such claim was granted or the earlier application containing such claim was published, whichever is earlier.

   (3) EARLIER APPLICATION.-For purposes of this section, an application shall not be deemed to be an earlier application with respect to an invention, relative to another application, unless a claim to the invention was or could have been made in such application having an effective filing date that is earlier than the effective filing date of any claim to the invention that was or could have been made in such other application.

   (4) NO APPEAL.-A determination by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding under paragraph (1) shall be final and not appealable.

      (b) DETERMINATION BY PATENT TRIAL ANDAPPEAL BOARD.— In a derivation proceeding instituted under subsection (a), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall determine whether an inventor named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. In appropriate circumstances, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may correct the naming of the inventor in any application or patent at issue. The Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards for the conduct of derivation proceedings, including requiring parties to provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation.

      (c) DEFERRAL OF DECISION.—The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-monthperiod beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant.

      (d) EFFECT OF FINAL DECISION.—The final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in an application for patent, shall constitute the final refusal by the Office on those claims. The final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in a patent, shall, if no appeal or other review of the decision has been or can be taken or had, constitute cancellation of those claims, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation.

      (e) SETTLEMENT.—Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection (a) may terminate the proceeding by filing a written statement reflecting the agreement of the parties as to the correct inventor of the claimed invention in dispute. Unless the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finds the agreement to be inconsistent with the evidence of record, if any, it shall take action consistent with the agreement. Any written settlement or understanding of the parties shall be filed with the Director. At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents or applications, and shall be made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.

      (f) ARBITRATION.—Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection (a) may, within such time as may be specified by the Director by regulation, determine such contest or any aspect thereof by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9, to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director from determining the patentability of the claimed inventions involved in the proceeding.

35 U.S.C. § 141 - Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(a)EXAMINATIONS.—An applicant who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(a) may appeal the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. By filing such an appeal, the applicant waives his or her right to proceed under section 145.

(b)REEXAMINATIONS.—A patent owner who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal of a reexamination to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(b) may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

(c)POST-GRANT AND INTER PARTESREVIEWS.—A party to an inter partes review or a post-grant review who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) or 328(a) (as the case may be) may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

(d)DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS.—A party to a derivation proceeding who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the proceeding may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but such appeal shall be dismissed if any adverse party to such derivation proceeding, within 20 days after the appellant has filed notice of appeal in accordance with section 142, files notice with the Director that the party elects to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 146.If the appellant does not, within 30 days after the filing of such notice by the adverse party, file a civil action under section 146, the Board’s decision shall govern the further proceedings in the case.

35 U.S.C. § 146 - Civil action in case of interference (repealed by the AIA effective March 16, 2013)

Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints or as provided in section 141, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and such appeal is pending or has been decided. In such suits the record in the Patent and Trademark Office shall be admitted on motion of either party upon the terms and conditions as to costs, expenses, and the further cross-examination of the witnesses as the court imposes, without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony. The testimony and exhibits of the record in the Patent and Trademark Office when admitted shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in the suit.

Such suit may be instituted against the party in interest as shown by the records of the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the decision complained of, but any party in interest may become a party to the action. If there be adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts not embraced within the same state, or an adverse party residing in a foreign country, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and may issue summons against the adverse parties directed to the marshal of any district in which any adverse party resides. Summons against adverse parties residing in foreign countries may be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The Director shall not be a necessary party but he shall be notified of the filing of the suit by the clerk of the court in which it is filed and shall have the right to intervene. Judgment of the court in favor of the right of an applicant to a patent shall authorize the Director to issue such patent on the filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment and on compliance with the requirements of law.

35 U.S.C. § 146 - Civil action in case of derivation proceeding (effective March 16, 2013)

Any party to a derivation proceeding dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints or as provided in section 141, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and such appeal is pending or has been decided. In such suits the record in the Patent and Trademark Office shall be admitted on motion of either party upon the terms and conditions as to costs, expenses, and the further cross-examination of the witnesses as the court imposes, without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony. The testimony and exhibits of the record in the Patent and Trademark Office when admitted shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in the suit.Such suit may be instituted against the party in interest as shown by the records of the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the decision complained of, but any party in interest may become a party to the action. If there be adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts not embraced within the same state, or an adverse party residing in a foreign country, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall have jurisdiction and may issue summons against the adverse parties directed to the marshal of any district in which any adverse party resides. Summons against adverse parties residing in foreign countries may be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The Director shall not be a necessary party but he shall be notified of the filing of the suit by the clerk of the court in which it is filed and shall have the right to intervene. Judgment of the court in favor of the right of an applicant to a patent shall authorize the Director to issue such patent on the filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment and on compliance with the requirements of law.

35 U.S.C. § 256 - Correction of named inventor

(a) CORRECTION.—Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.

(b) PATENT VALID IF ERROR CORRECTED.—The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.

35 U.S.C. § 291 - Interfering patents (repealed by the AIA effective March 16, 2013)

The owner of an interfering patent may have relief against the owner of another by civil action, and the court may adjudge the question of validity of any of the interfering patents, in whole or in part. The provisions of the second paragraph of section 146 shall apply to actions brought under this section.

35 U.S.C. § 291 - Derived patents (effective March 16, 2013)

(a)IN GENERAL.—The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an earlier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section.

(b)FILING LIMITATION.—An action under this section may be filed only before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the issuance of the first patent containing a claim to the allegedly derived invention and naming an individual alleged to have derived such invention as the inventor or joint inventor.

Return to Top

Interference Rules

Return to Top

Derivation Rules

Return to Top

Interference Forms

Return to Top

Recently Declared Interferences/Filed Petitions for Derivation Proceeding

 

Interference No. 106,048

 

  • Patent No.  8697359, 8993233, 8795965, 8771945, 8889356, 8865406, 8999641, 8945839, 8932814, 8871445, 8906616, 8895308
  • Application No.  13/842,859 (The Regents of the University of California and University of Vienna, Caribou Biosciences, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG and ERS Genomics Ltd., and TRACR Hematology Ltd.)
  • METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTION
  • Declared:  1/11/16

 

Interference No. 106,043

 

  • Patent No.  8,585,589 (James Z. Cinberg)
  • Application No.  14/284,718 (Neuro-Kinetics, Inc. and James Z. Cinberg)
  • METHOD AND ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR DETECTING MINOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
  • Declared:  11/30/15

 

Interference No. 106,035

 

  • Patent No.  8,049,659 (Flex Force Enterprises LLC)
  • Application No.  12/845,508 (Mr. Christopher J. Rourk)
  • WEAPON DETECTION AND ELIMINATION SYSTEM
  • Declared:  11/30/15

 

Interference No. 106,042

 

  • Patent No.  7,935,252 (Affiris Forschungs-Und Entwicklungs GMBH)
  • Application No.  13/655,234
  • METHOD FOR TREATING AMYLOID DISEASE
  • Declared:  11/17/15

 

Interference No. 106,039

 

  • Patent No.  7,822,381 (Sirius XM Radio Inc.)
  • Application No.  12/978,868 (Steven M. Colby, Ph.D., JD)
  • SYSTEM FOR AUDIO BROADCAST CHANNEL REMAPPING AND REBRANDING USING CONTENT INSERTION
  • Declared:  10/29/15

 

Interference No. 106,038

 

  • Patent No.  8,290,425 (Cufer Asset Ltd. L.L.C.)
  • Application No.  12/978,868 (Steven M. Colby, Ph.D., JD)
  • PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING ON A RADIO IN RESPONSE TO USER INPUT
  • Declared:  10/29/15

 

Interference No. 106,040

 

  • Patent No.  9,144,769 (Scio-Tech, LLC)
  • Application No.  14/666,199 (Alloys Cleaning, Inc.)
  • REMOVAL OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANTS FROM GAS, RELATED APPARATUS, PROCESSES AND USES THEREOF
  • Declared:  10/26/15

 

Interference No. 106,037

 

  • Patent No.  8,821,941 (Sienna Labs, Inc.)
  • Application No.  13/789,575 (The General Hospital Corporation)
  • COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS COMPRISING ENERGY ABSORBING COMPOUNDS FOR FOLLICULAR DELIVERY
  • Declared:  10/8/15

 

Interference No. 106,036

 

  • Patent No.  8,844,072 (Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited)
  • Application No.  13/829,667 (Kids II, Inc.)
  • CHILD SLEEPING APPARATUS WITH FOLDING FRAME
  • Declared:  10/7/15

 

Interference No. 106,034

 

  • Patent No.  8,993,786 (Mylan Laboratories Limited)
  • Application No.  14/125,386 (Hetero Research Foundation)
  • NOVEL POLYMORPHS OF FOSAMPRENAVIR CALCIUM
  • Declared:  8/27/15

 

Interference No. 106,033

 

  • Patent No.  8,278,022 (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo Co., Ltd.)
  • Application No.  13/000,191 (Honshu Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.)
  • TETRAKIS(ETHER-SUBSTITUTED FORMYLPHENYL) AND NEW POLYNUCLEAR POLYPHENOL DERIVED FROM THE SAME
  • Declared:  8/21/15

 

Interference No. 106,032

 

  • Patent No.  8,420,335 (Københavns Universitet, Nørregarde 10, 1165 København K Denmark)
  • Application No.  12/091,205 (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Epizyme, Inc. and National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS))
  • PROTEIN DEMETHYLASES COMPRISING A JMJC DOMAIN
  • Declared:  8/17/15

 

Interference No. 106,030

 

  • Patent No.  9,066,865 (Auris Medical AG)
  • Application No.  13/848,636 (Otonomy, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California)
  • PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF INNER EAR DISORDERS
  • Declared:  July 20, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,028

 

  • Application No.  13/139,591 (Tosoh Corporation)
  • Application No.  13/057,911 (Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company)
  • CHABAZITE-TYPE ZEOLITE AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
  • Declared:  June 23, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,029

 

  • Patent No.  8,541,422 (Ipca Laboratories Limited)
  • Application No.  14/322,939 (Jiangsu Vcare Pharmatech Co., Ltd.)
  • METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OR PROPHYLAXIS OF THROMBOSIS OR EMBOLISM
  • Declared:  June 2, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,027

 

  • Application No.  13/791,442 (THERMOENERGY CORPORATION; JOSEPH D. MEDDINGS; PETER RICHARDS, MANAGING PARTNER, CREDITOR, EMPIRE CAPITAL PARTNERS; and ROBERT S. TRUMP, CREDITOR)
  • Application No.  13/556,102 (Dennis Crabtree, Bill Love, and John Martin)
  • ORGANIC LIQUID FERTILIZER AND PROCESS OF MAKING
  • Declared:  May 28, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,025

 

  • Patent No.  8,614,197 (Pacific Arrow Limited)
  • Application No.  11/631,637 (Songjian Wang and Baizhen Yang)
  • ANTI-TUMOR COMPOUNDS WITH ANGELOYL GROUPS
  • Declared:  May 20, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,026

 

  • Patent No.  7,319,394 (Intel Corporation)
  • Application No.  11/818,295 (Universal Electronics Inc.)
  • TECHNIQUES TO CONFIGURE A REMOTE CONTROL
  • Declared:  May 18, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,024

 

  • Patent No.  PP24,316 (Jakov Dulcich and Sons, LLC)
  • Application No.  13/506,354 (Sheehan Genetics, LLC, AMC Direct, Inc., MM (UK) Ltd., and AMC Grupo Alimentacion, Fresca y Zumos, S.A.)
  • Grape vine plant denominated 'JPD-001'
  • Declared:  April 24, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,023

 

  • Patent No.  8,399,514 (Biogen MA Inc.)
  • Application No.  11/576,871 (Forward Pharma A/S)
  • Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis
  • Declared:  April 13, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,022

 

  • Application No.  11/372,857 (RECRO TECHNOLOGY LLC)
  • Application Nos.  13/833,263 and 14/094,968 (Purdue Pharma L.P.)
  • Multiparticulate modified release composition
  • Declared:  April 8, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,020

 

  • Patent No.  8,263,338 (Catalyst Assets, LLC.)
  • Application No.  13/886,234 (Illumina, Inc. and Illumina Cambridge Limited)
  • METHOD OF NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION
  • Declared:  March 10, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,019

 

  • Application No.  8,383,343 (Catalyst Assets, LLC.)
  • Application No.  13/886,234 (Illumina, Inc. and Illumina Cambridge Limited)
  • METHOD OF NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION
  • Declared:  March 10, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,017

 

  • Patent No.  8,563,521 and Application No. 13/963,953 (TECHNISCHE 3 UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN)
  • Application No.  13/469,902 (Amunix Operating Inc.)
  • COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING PRODUCTION OF RECOMBINANT POLYPEPTIDES
  • Declared:  March 4, 2015

 

Interference No. 106,016

 

  • Application No.  12/673,722 (Intervet Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc.)
  • Application No.  12/663,848 (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company)
  • ANIMAL PEST CONTROL METHOD
  • Declared:  February 10, 2015

 

 


View Declared Interferences Archives

Return to Top

Copyright © Ashe, P.C.