Ashe P.C. - Intellectual Property Attorneys - Professionals - Oliver R. Ashe, Jr.
OLIVER R. ASHE, JR.

Oliver R. Ashe, Jr.

Principal / Founder

Download VCard

Education

  • The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, J.D.
    (magna cum laude)
  • The Catholic University of America, B.S. in Biology

Experience

Recognized by IP Law and Business as one of the top 50 intellectual property attorneys under the age of 45, Mr. Ashe serves his clients in a variety of unique roles related to upper-level proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Mr. Ashe is a member of the IPO U.S. Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee and the AIPLA USPTO Inter Partes Patent Proceedings Committee.

Lead and Backup Lead Counsel.   Mr. Ashe has extensive experience serving as Lead and Backup lead counsel in interference proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.   As a well-recognized interference practitioner, clients retain Mr. Ashe to serve as Lead or Backup lead counsel in high profile and complex interference proceedings, which often involve co-pending litigation, reexaminations, and/or foreign opposition proceedings.   Mr. Ashe's intimate knowledge of the rules and practices governing contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is also particularly well suited to AIA proceedings, which have procedural frameworks modeled after current interference procedures.

Consultant.   Clients often retain Mr. Ashe to assist their existing PTAB and/or litigation counsel in proceedings pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and/or before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.   As a result of his extensive leadership experience in complex interference proceedings, Mr. Ashe is a well-seasoned team player who effectively integrates into existing legal teams to assist in developing and executing complex case strategies.  

Advisor to In-House Counsel.   Mr. Ashe regularly serves as an advisor to in-house counsel regarding basic and advanced matters related to proceedings at the PTAB, including: interferences, Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post Grant Reviews (PGRs), Derivation proceedings, and reexaminations.  In view of his extensive interference experience, Mr. Ashe is often retained to assist in internal inventorship determinations and external inventorship disputes.

Admissions

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Supreme Court of Virginia
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Affliations

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
  • American Bar Association (ABA)
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Northern Virginia Patent Lawyers Club

Representative Cases

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (and Related Cases)

AC Immune S.A. v. AbbVie Inc. (Interference No. 106,014)

Lead interference counsel for AC Immune SA and Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving antibody compositions used in the treatment of disorders associated with amyloid protein such as Alzheimer’s disease.

 

Mojo Media, Inc. v. Snapchat, Inc. (Interference No. 106,005)

Backup lead interference counsel for Mojo Media, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding relating to devices and methods for photo and video capture with a single user input element.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc. (IPR2014-00171, -00172, -00173, -00174, -00175, -00176, and -00177)

Lead counsel for RPX Corporation in Inter Partes Review proceedings involving domain name service systems.

Lephart v. Setchell (Interference No. 105,950)

Interference counsel for Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center in a patent interference proceeding relating to a method of ameliorating benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Baxter Healthcare SA v. Mount Sinai School of Medicine (Interference No. 105,952)

Lead interference counsel for Baxter Healthcare SA in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for inducing an immune response against an influenza virus. 

Tas v. Beachy (Interference No. 105,926)

Backup lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc., Curis, Inc., and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving treatment of basal cell carcinoma.  Related cases:  Tas v. Beachy, Interference No. 105,949; and Tas v. Beachy, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2015-1175; Sinan Tas v. Philip A. Beachy, et al., No. 15-1089 (U.S. 2016).

Tas v. Beachy (Interference No. 105,949)

Backup lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc., Curis, Inc., and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving treatment of basal cell carcinoma.  Related cases:  Tas v. Beachy, Interference No. 105,926; and Tas v. Beachy, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2015-1175; Sinan Tas v. Philip A. Beachy, et al., No. 15-1089 (U.S. 2016).

Enphase Energy, Inc. v. Solarbridge Technologies, Inc. (Interference No. 105,935)

Backup lead interference counsel for Enphase Energy, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a cable assembly for delivering power.

Murphy v. Clark (Interference No. 105,904)

Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving compositions and methods useful for modulating lymphocyte signaling and activity.

Yates v. Seddon (Interference No. 105,897)

Lead interference counsel for Tufts Medical Center, Inc., The General Hospital Corporation, NIH, Optherion, Inc., and Sequenom, Inc. against Cambridge Enterprise Limmited, University of Cambridge, and ArcticOx Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Shafer v. Omura (Interference No. 105,834)

Backup lead interference counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH against Nikon Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.

Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Interference No. 105,792)

Backup lead interference counsel for Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving siRNA silencing of EG5 gene expression.

Universities v. Fujifilm Corporation (Interference No. 105,771)

Lead interference counsel for Universal Display Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving an organic light emitting device.

Carter v. Adair (Interference No. 105,762)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. against UCB Pharma S.A. in a patent interference proceeding involving humanized antibodies. Related case:  Adair v. Carter, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2011-1378.

Shafer v. Omura (Interference No. 105,753)
Backup lead interference counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT AG in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.

Shafer v. Omura (Interference No. 105,749)
Backup lead interference counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT AG in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.

Carter v. Adair (Interference No. 105,744)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. against UCB Pharma S.A. in a patent interference proceeding involving humanized antibodies.
  Related cases:  Adair v. Carter, Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2011-1212 and 2011-1213.

Sepracor, Inc. v. Wyeth (Interference No. 105,685)

Interference Counsel for Sepracor, Inc. in patent interference proceedings involving a pharmaceutical compound.  Related Cases:  Jerussi v. Hadfield, Interference No. 105,671; and Hadfield v. Jerussi, Interference No. 105,689.

Shafer v. Omura (Interference No. 105,678)
Backup lead interference counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT AG against Nikon Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.

Raz v. Krieg (Interference No. 105,674)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences.  Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference No. 105,526; Raz v. Krieg, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245.

Lyman v. Lee (Interference No. 105,630)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. against Immunex Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving VEGF-related protein (VRP).

Baekkeskov v. Atkinson (Interference No. 105,576)
Backup lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California against University of Florida Research Foundation and Dade Behring Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the early detection of the onset of insulin-dependent diabetes.

Cabilly v. Boss (Interference No. 105,531)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. against UCB S.A. in a patent interference proceeding involving recombinant antibodies (Cabilly III patent).  Related Case: Boss v. Cabilly, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1264 (Cabilly III patent). See also (relating to Cabilly II patent), Cabilly v. Boss, Interference No. 102,572, 55 USPQ2d 1238 (BPAI 1998), 60 USPQ2d 1752 (BPAI 2001); Genentech, Inc. v. Celltech Therapeutics, Ltd., Case No. C98-3926 (MMC) (N.D. Cal. 2001); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 2:03-cv-02567-MRP-CT (C.D. Cal. 2008); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 04-1300 and 04-1384, 76 USPQ2d 1914, 427 F3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 05-608, 81 USPQ2d 1225, 549 US 118, 127 SCt 764 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007); Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-03573-MRP-CT (C.D. Cal.); and Reexamination Numbers: 90/007,542 & 90/007,859.

Raz v. Krieg (Interference No. 105,526)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California against the University of Iowa Research Foundation, Coley Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences.  Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference No. 105,674; Raz v. Krieg, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245.

Ashkenazi v. Browning (Interference No. 105,513)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. against Biogen Idec MA Inc. and University of Geneva in a patent interference proceeding involving a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) polypeptide sequence known as "TWEAK."

Garner v. Quate (Interference No. 105,455)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for deprotecting reaction sites on a substrate.  Related Case: In re Garner, 508 F.3d 1376, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Quate v. Cerrina (Interference No. 105,446)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. against Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and NimbleGen System, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving an optical lithography system.

Garner v. Quate (Interference No. 105,445)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. against NimbleGen Systems Inc. and University of Texas System in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of patterning on a substrate within a reaction chamber.

Bedilion v. Besemer (Interference No. 105,440)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. against Incyte Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving an apparatus for mixing fluids in the synthesis of polymer arrays.

Goldberg v. Bass (Interference No. 105,424)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. against Agilent Technologies, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of synthesizing an array of biopolymers.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1532.

Goldberg v. Bass (Interference No. 105,422)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. against Agilent Technologies, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of synthesizing an array of chemical compounds.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1519.

Adang v. Umbeck (Interference No. 105,367)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences against Monsanto Technology LLC and Bayer Crop Science GmbH in a patent interference proceeding involving transformed cotton plantlets.  Related Case: Adang v. Umbeck, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1120.

Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Interference No. 105,361)
Lead interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving agonist and antagonist antibodies to Death Receptor 5. Related Cases: Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:07-cv-00780, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2008-1418 (Interference No. 105,240); Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:07-cv-00526 (Interference No. 105,381); Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:08-cv-00166, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1182 (Interference No. 105,361); and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corp., Civil Case No. 1:09-cv-00389 (Interference No. 105,380).

Barany v. McGall (Interference No. 105,351)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix against Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., University of Minnesota, Louisiana State University, Applera Corporation, and Applied Biosystems Group in a patent interference proceeding involving oligonucleotide analogue probes or targets.

Raz v. Platt (Interference No. 105,350)
Backup lead interference counsel for Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Wayne State University against GlycoGenesys in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the therapeutic treatment of cancer in mammals.

Sawhley v. Schwartz (Interference No. 105,317)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California against Genzyme Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of closing a retinal break and preventing proliferative vitreoretinopathy in a mammalian eye.

Schembri v. Besemer (Interference No. 105,285)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix in a patent interference proceeding involving methodology used in the preparation of DNA arrays.   Related Cases: Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., Civil Case No.: C06-05958-JW-PVT (N.D. Cal 2008), Agilent v. Affymetrix, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2008-1466.

Grande v. Bonaventure (Interference No. 105,283)
Lead interference counsel for Salomon, S.A. against K-2 Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a ventilated sport shoe.

Hammond v. Leiden (Interference No. 105,217)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California against Arch Development Corporation and Boston Scientific Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of stimulating coronary collateral vessel development comprising delivery of a replication deficient adenovirus vector to the myocardium of a patient by intracoronary injection. Related Case: Leiden v. Hammond, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1023; Related publication: Xenia P. Kobylarz, Back From the Dead, IP Law & Business, November 2007, at 32.

Gray v. Westbrook (Interference No. 105,207)
Lead interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California against Arch Development Corporation and Ventana Medical System, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving a composition for detecting chromosomal aberrations involving the BCR and ABL genes.  Related Case: Dietz-Band v. Gray, Interference No. 105,208.

Sernyk v. DeBonte (Interference No. 105,163)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences against Cargill, Incorporated in patent interference proceeding involving improved canola oil having specified oleic, linoleic and linoleic acid contents and ratios.   Related Cases: Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39164 (Fed. Cir. December 20, 2005) and Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 1359, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Lanuza v. Fan (Interference No. 105,162)
Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences against Cargill, Incorporated in a patent interference proceeding involving improved canola oil having specified oleic, linoleic and linoleic acid contents and ratios.   Related Cases: Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39164 (Fed. Cir. December 20, 2005) and Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 1359, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Kaloyeros v. Hautala (Interference No. 105,161)
Lead interference counsel for Gelest, Inc. and The Research Foundation of State University of New York against Tokyo Electron Limited in a patent interference proceeding involving a method for the chemical vapor deposition of a film comprising tantalum.

Agilent v. Affymetrix (Interference No. 105,089)
Lead interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving an assay plate for the detection of oligonucleotides.

Matsumoto v. Schaap (Interference 104,478)
Represented Lumigen, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding relating to dioxetane chemiluminescence.

Young v. Cotrel (Interference No. 104,423)
Represented Sepracor, Inc. in a pharmaceutical patent interference proceeding relating to zopiclone.

Gawron-Burke v. Payne (Interference No. 103,899)
Backup Lead interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA encoding a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. Related Case: Monsanto v. Mycogen, Civil Case No.: 01CV353-B(POR).

Bamberger v. Cheruvu (Interference No. 103,844)
Counsel for Mobil Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a gas phase process for producing a copolymer of ethylene and alpha olefin. Related Case: Mobil Oil Corp. v. Exxon Corp., Case No. 1:96-cv-01603-TSE (E.D. Va).

Barton v. Fischhoff v. Adang (Interference No. 103,781)
Lead interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.   Related Cases: Barton v. Adang, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 97-1491, 49 USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Mycogen Plant Science v. Monsanto Co., Civil Case No. 95-CV-0653J (LSP), Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2000-1127; Mycogen v. Monsanto, Civil Case No. 96-505-RRM, Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2000-1001 and 2000-1051; and Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Civil Case No. 96-133-RRM, Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2000-1002, 2000-1003, and 2000-1050; Mycogen v. Monsanto, Civil Case No.: 1:04-CV-0573DFH-WTL.

Fukuda et al. v. Jolley (Interference No 103,526)
Counsel for Lubrizol Corporation in a multi-party patent interference proceeding involving the development of new lubricants for HFC-based cooling systems (a "drop-in" replacement for the commonly used CFC R12).   Related Case: In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 137, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

McGraw et al. v. Jolley (Interference No 103,525)
Counsel for Lubrizol Corporation in a multi-party patent interference proceeding involving the development of new lubricants for HFC-based cooling systems (a "drop-in" replacement for the commonly used CFC R12).   Related Case: In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 137, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Fischhoff v. Adang (Interference No. 103,324)
Lead interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving tomato plants that were genetically modified to incorporate a bacterial gene that confers insert resistance.  Related Case: Adang v. Fischhoff, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 01-1169, 62 USPQ2d 1504, 286 F3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

District Courts, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court of the United States

Sinan Tas v. Philip A. Beachy, et al.  (U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-1089)
Lead counsel for Genentech, Inc., Curis, Inc., and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving treatment of basal cell carcinoma. 
Related cases:  Tas v. Beachy, Interference Nos. 105,926 and 105,949
; Tas v. Beachy, Appeal No. 2015-1175 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Tas v. Beachy (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2015-1175)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Genentech, Inc., Curis, Inc., and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving 
treatment of basal cell carcinoma.  Related cases:  Tas v. Beachy, Interference Nos. 105,926 and 105,949; Sinan Tas v. Philip A. Beachy, et al., No. 15-1089 (U.S. 2016). 

 

IPDEV Co. v. Ameranth, Inc. (Civil Case No. 14-CV-1303-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.))
Interference counsel for IPDEV Co. in an action filed under 35 U.S.C. § 291 and involving a method of online ordering and related apparatus.

 

Adair v. Carter (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2011-1378)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving humanized antibodies.  Related case:  Carter v. Adair, Interference No. 105,762.

Adair v. Carter (Fed. Cir. Appeal Nos. 2011-1212 and 2011-1213)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving humanized antibodies.  Related case:  Carter v. Adair, Interference No. 105,744.

Omura v. Shafer (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2010-1357)

Appellate co-counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT AG in a patent interference proceeding involving a catadioptric projection objective.  Related Case:  Shafer v. Omura, Interference No. 105,678.

Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1182)

Appellate co-counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving agonist and antagonist antibodies to Death Receptor 5.  Related Cases: Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:08-cv-00166; and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Interference No. 105,361.

Boss v. Cabilly (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1264)
Appellate
co-counsel for Genentech, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving recombinant antibodies (Cabilly III patent).  Related Case: Cabilly v. Boss, Interference No. 105,531.

Raz v. Krieg (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2009-1245)
Lead appellate interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in a patent interference proceeding involving methods of treating asthma by administering immunostimulatory polynucleotide sequences. Related Cases: Raz v. Krieg, Interference Nos. 105,526 and 105,674.

Goldberg v. Bass (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1532)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA array methodology.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Interference No. 105,424.

Goldberg v. Bass (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1519)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Affymetrix, Inc. in a patent interference proceeding involving DNA array methodology.  Related Case: Goldberg v. Bass, Interference No. 105,422.

Adang v. Umbeck (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2007-1120)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences) in a patent interference proceeding involving transformed cotton plantlets.  Related Case: Adang v. Umbeck, Interference No. 105,367.

Leiden v. Hammond (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1023)
Lead appellate interference counsel for The Regents of the University of California in patent interference proceeding involving a method of stimulating coronary collateral vessel development comprising delivery of a replication deficient adenovirus vector to the myocardium of a patient by intracoronary injection.  Related Case: Hammond v. Leiden, Interference No. 105,217, 77 USPQ2d 1319 (BPAI 2005).

Adang v. Fischhoff (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2001-1169)
Lead appellate interference counsel for Dow AgroSciences in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.  Related Case: Fischhoff v. Adang, Interference No. 103,324.

Barton v. Adang (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 1997-1491)
Backup appellate interference counsel for Mycogen Corporation in a patent interference proceeding involving a method of designing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis gene to be more highly expressed in plants.  Related Case: Barton v. Fischhoff v. Adang, Interference No. 103,781.

Speaking Engagements

"Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board – Lessons Learned Over The Last 25 Months" - Pauline Newman IP Inn of Court Program, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, November 10, 2014.

 

"Setting Sail in Uncharted Waters: Life Sciences Companies Prepare for Post-Grant Review" - The Federal Circuit Bar Association, Boston, MA, September 16, 2014.

 

"Navigating AIA Trials at the USPTO" - Intellectual Property Section, The Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, July 14, 2014.

 

"Discovery & Joinder in Inter Partes Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" - PLI's USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2014, New York, NY, March 27, 2014.

"Romancing the USPTO - Concurrent Post-Grant Proceedings: Dos, Don'ts, and Tips for Creating a Strong Record for Appeal or Civil Action" - Pauline Newman IP Inn of Court Program, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, January 15, 2014.

"BACK TO THE FUTURE - Discovery at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)" - 2013 IPO Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, September 16, 2013.

“35 U.S.C. § 135 - Strategic Considerations” - Oakland, CA, January 18, 2011.

“Patentability Contests At The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office” - South San Francisco, CA, August 26, 2010.

Interference Appeals to the Federal Circuit ” - Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Patent Interferences Rules and Practice Conference, Washington, D.C., December 2, 2008.

Proving Priority” - Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Patent Interferences Rules and Practice Conference, Washington, D.C., December 5, 2006. 

Interference Practice: 2005” - Northern Virginia Patent Lawyers Club, Virginia, March 29, 2005. 

Modern Interference Practice” - Interference Seminar - Greenblum & Bernstein's Patent Litigation Seminar Series, Reston, VA, March 18, 2003. 

Modern Interference Practice” - Advanced Biotechnology/Chemical Patent Practice Seminar (AIPLA), Washington, D.C., 2000.

Copyright © Ashe, P.C.