C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 41—PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD › Subpart E—Patent Interferences

37 C.F.R. § 41.203

Declaration

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Interfering subject matter. An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa.

(b) Notice of declaration. An administrative patent judge declares the patent interference on behalf of the Director. A notice declaring an interference identifies:

(1) The interfering subject matter;

(2) The involved applications, patents, and claims;

(3) The accorded benefit for each count; and

(4) The claims corresponding to each count.

(c) Redeclaration. An administrative patent judge may redeclare a patent interference on behalf of the Director to change the declaration made under paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) A party may suggest the addition of a patent or application to the interference or the declaration of an additional interference. The suggestion should make the showings required under § 41.202(a) of this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Spine v. BIEDERMANN MOTECH GMBH
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spine v. BIEDERMANN MOTECH GMBH (2010) dcd · cites it 7× “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 . Either the patent applicant or the patent examiner may suggest an interference.”
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. (2011) cafc · cites it 2× “" 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a). In other words, for two claims to interfere, each claim must anticipate or render obvious the other; failure of either claim to anticipate or render obvious the other defeats the test for interfering patents.”
University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (2018) cafc “" 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a). If the two-way test is not met, no interference-in-fact exists.”
Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp. (2010) cafc · cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a); see Medichem, S.A.”
Cytologic, Inc. v. Biopheresis Gmbh (2010) dcd · cites it 3× “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 . Either the patent applicant or the patent examiner may suggest an interference.”
Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. (2012) mad “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (b). A count is “the Board’s description of the interfering subject matter that sets the scope of admissible proofs on priority.”
Yorkey v. Diab (2010) cafc “The standard for determining whether an interference exists is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a): An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party…”
Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (2010) ned “37 C.F.R. 41.203(a). The Board declared Interference No.”
Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott Gmbh & Co. Kg (2015) dcd “See 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 . If the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decides that an interference is warranted, i&, that “an application is made for a patent which .”
Spine v. Biedermann Motech Gmbh (2010) dcd · cites it 5× “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 . Either the patent applicant or the patent examiner may suggest an interference.”
Cytologic, Inc. v. Biopheresis Gmbh (2010) dcd · cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 . Either the patent applicant or the patent examiner may suggest an interference.”
Tas v. Beachy (2015) cafc · cites it 2× “See 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a). The PTAB nevertheless proceeded to decide the merits of Tag’s argument because it determined that Tag’s motion “essentially has compared” claims 15 and 20 of the '078 patent to claim 201 of the '121 application.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 37 C.F.R. § 41.203(a) — 2 cases
Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (2010) ned “37 C.F.R. 41.203(a). The Board declared Interference No.”
Tas v. Beachy (2015) cafc “See 37 C.F.R. § 41.203 (a). The PTAB nevertheless proceeded to decide the merits of Tag’s argument because it determined that Tag’s motion “essentially has compared” claims 15 and 20 of the '078 patent to claim 201 of the '121 application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.