(a) Priority—(1) Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party.
(2) Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and convincing evidence if the date of its earliest constructive reduction to practice is after the issue date of an involved patent or the publication date under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) of an involved application or patent.
(b) Claim correspondence. (1) For the purposes of determining priority and derivation, all claims of a party corresponding to the count are presumed to stand or fall together. To challenge this presumption, a party must file a timely substantive motion to have a corresponding claim designated as not corresponding to the count. No presumption based on claim correspondence regarding the grouping of claims exists for other grounds of unpatentability.
(2) A claim corresponds to a count if the subject matter of the count, treated as prior art to the claim, would have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of the claim.
(c) Cross-applicability of prior art. When a motion for judgment of unpatentability against an opponent's claim on the basis of prior art is granted, each of the movant's claims corresponding to the same count as the opponent's claim will be presumed to be unpatentable in view of the same prior art unless the movant in its motion rebuts this presumption.
Notes of Decisions
EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp., 742 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.207 (c), 2 the Board next applied a presumption that EnOcean’s claims would be unpatentable for the same reasons that Face’s claims were unpatentable.”
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. Del. 2008).
“37 C.F.R. § 41.207 (a). “A common two-party interference before the PTO is an administrative proceeding expected to be concluded in 24 months.”
Streck, Inc. v. Rsch. & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 970 (D. Neb. 2010).
“37 C.F.R. § 41.207 (a)(2) (“Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and convincing evidence if the date of its earliest constructive reduction to practice is after the issue date of an involved patent or the…”
Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp., 942 F. Supp. 2d 189 (D. Mass. 2013).
“at 885 ; see 37 C.F.R § 41.207(a)(2). The Board issued a decision on Troy’s motion on January 6, 2011.”
Beckmann v. Gandhi, 646 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The Board concluded that Beckmann failed to do so as to claims 1 and 2.”
Wilson v. Martin (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“The Board also invalidated as anticipated or obvious all of the claims of the ’267 application on the same bases it invalidated claims 1–45 of the ’044 patent, finding that Martin did not rebut the presumption that these claims were invalid in view of the same prior art.”
Speck v. Bates (Fed. Cir. 2024).
“37 C.F.R. § 41.207 (b)(2). An interference-in-fact ex- ists when one party’s claims corresponding to the count an- ticipate or make obvious the other party’s claims, which correspond to the same count, and vice-versa (a so-called two-way test).”
Speck v. Bates, 102 F.4th 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
“37 C.F.R. § 41.207 (b)(2). An interference-in-fact ex- ists when one party’s claims corresponding to the count an- ticipate or make obvious the other party’s claims, which correspond to the same count, and vice-versa (a so-called two-way test).”
— 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(a)(2) — 2 cases
Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp., 942 F. Supp. 2d 189 (D. Mass. 2013).
“at 885 ; see 37 C.F.R § 41.207(a)(2). The Board issued a decision on Troy’s motion on January 6, 2011.”
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.