IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Patent filing"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent filing"'s Posts

Private Sale Means Public Fail

by | Aug 8, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that a private sale of a product embodying the claimed invention did not qualify as a “public disclosure” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology Int’l Ltd, Inc., Case No. 23-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.)

Sanho owns a patent directed to a port extension apparatus designed to enhance connectivity of end-user devices (such as laptops) with other devices (such as printers). Kaijet petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging certain claims of Sanho’s patent, arguing that the claims were obvious based on a prior art reference. The Board found that the patent claims were invalid because of the prior art reference’s earlier effective filing date. Sanho argued that a prior sale of its HyperDrive device by the inventor of the patent should disqualify the reference as prior art. However, the Board determined that Sanho failed to demonstrate a public disclosure of the HyperDrive sale before the prior art reference’s effective filing date. Thus, the patent was invalidated. Sanho appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, explaining that the America Invents Act (AIA) redefined prior art, shifting from a first-to-invent to a first-inventor-to-file system. Under the AIA, prior art includes patents and applications filed before the patent’s effective filing date subject to exceptions for public disclosures by the inventor. Sanho argued that the HyperDrive sale fell into this exception.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Sanho’s argument that the phrase “publicly disclosed” in § 102(b)(2)(B) should encompass all types of disclosures described in § 102(a)(1), including private sales. The crux of the issue was whether placing an invention “on sale” was tantamount to a “public disclosure” under § 102(b)(2)(B). The statute states that a disclosure is not prior art if the subject matter was publicly disclosed by the inventor before the effective filing date of the prior art. Sanho argued that “publicly disclosed” includes any disclosure, even private sales. The Court disagreed, explaining that the statute’s use of “publicly” implies a narrower scope than just “disclosed.” The Court noted that the purpose of this exception is to protect inventors who make their inventions available to the public before another’s patent filing.

The Federal Circuit also relied on legislative history in support of the conclusion that “public disclosure” in § 102(b)(2)(B) means the invention must be made available to the public. Sanho argued that as long as there are no confidentiality requirements, all disclosures, even private sales, should constitute public disclosures. Again, the Court rejected that argument, noting that the statute differentiates between “publicly disclosed” and general “disclosures,” implying different meanings.

The Federal Circuit determined that § 102(b)(2)(B) protects inventors who publicly disclose their inventions from subsequent disclosures by others, ensuring that prior public disclosure by the inventor prevents a third party’s disclosure from becoming prior art. This provision aims to encourage inventors to share their innovations with the public.

Practice Note: For a disclosure to qualify as “public” under the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Are You Ready for the UPC? Act Now to Prepare for its Opening on June 1

by , and | Mar 1, 2023 | ,

On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and triggered the UPC’s entry into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC will revolutionize patent enforcement across Europe and impact companies around the world that hold European patents or conduct business in Europe.

Owners of existing European patents or pending applications can “opt out” of the UPC’s jurisdiction for an initial transitional period of at least seven years. Companies must act now if they want to opt out before the court officially opens.

Understanding the UPC

The UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement and invalidity actions in its member states for patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), including existing European patents and new European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents). There are currently 17 EU Member States participating in the UPC (Germany, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia). Additional EU Member States may join the UPC in the future.

The UPC will have local and regional divisions in its member states, with a central division in Paris and Munich and a Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

As a streamlined patent enforcement venue, the UPC will provide several new benefits to patent owners, including faster decisions with limited discovery and lower cost, and the possibility of injunctive relief throughout the member states. At the same time, the UPC will allow revocation of a patent in a single action with effect for all member states, alongside the possibility to oppose a European patent before the EPO.

European Freedom to Operate

Because of the UPC’s structure and incentives, patent litigation will likely increase in Europe, which will heighten the intellectual property (IP) infringement risk for companies doing business in Europe. If a company has not already done so, it should promptly review its competitors’ European patent estates to assess the potential risks and develop a defense strategy to avoid a surprise attack from a competitor after June 1, 2023.

European Enforcement Actions

Although the UPC is new and untried, it has the incentive to provide strong relief for those who trust it. If a company needs to bring a patent infringement action against a competitor and would like to do so in a fast, cost-effective manner, with the possibility of significant remedies, the UPC should be considered as a potential venue. The company should review its portfolio and infringement evidence to assess its opportunities.

Deciding Whether to Opt Out

The right to opt out European patent filings from the UPC’s jurisdiction will be available for an initial transitional period of seven years, which may extend to 14 years. It will be possible to reverse an opt-out, but not if the patent has been enforced or attacked in national court.

McDermott’s UPC Resource Center explores the various advantages and disadvantages of both staying in and opting out of the UPC.



read more

Enablement: Skilled artisan’s knowledge no substitute for adequate written description

by | Oct 30, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US International Trade Commission’s (Commission) decision that a water filtration patent was invalid for lack of written description and enablement because the scope of the asserted claim was not enabled by the patent’s specification. Brita LP v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 24-1098 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)

Brita filed a complaint at the Commission alleging that Vestergaard Frandsen and Helen of Troy infringed its water filtering patent. The main dispute focused on the patent’s only independent claim, which in part recites a “gravity-fed water filter, comprising filter media including at least activated carbon and a lead scavenger” that achieves a “Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor of about 350 or less.” The patent identifies several types of filter media, including carbon filters.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) construed the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” to mean “the total number of gallons of water that a manufacturer or seller has validated can be filtered before the filter is replaced.” Based on this construction, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements.

Brita sought review of the initial determination before the full Commission. On review, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of a violation, concluding that the “filter usage” term was indefinite, the asserted claims lacked adequate written description, and the claims were not enabled with respect to non-carbon block filters. Brita appealed.

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent must demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. This means the specification must adequately support each claim. In this case, the Federal Circuit found that the specification only supported carbon block filters meeting the claimed FRAP factor, not the broader category of “filter media” as claimed. As a result, the Court found that the asserted claims failed the written description requirement.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the patent specification failed to support the broad claim language because of its narrow focus on carbon block filters. Specifically, the specification:

  • Described only carbon blocks, with other filter media mentioned solely as tested examples for FRAP factor
  • Provided specific formulations for carbon blocks only
  • Illustrated only carbon block filters in the figures
  • Made clear distinctions between carbon blocks and other filter types.

The Federal Circuit found persuasive the inventor’s testimony that only carbon block filters were created to meet the FRAP factor.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s finding that the claims were invalid for lack of enablement. Under the Federal Circuit’s 1988 In re Wands decision, enablement requires that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The Court found no reversible error in the Commission’s conclusion that undue experimentation would be required for filters other than carbon blocks to meet the claimed FRAP factor. The [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Failure to reassess subject matter eligibility after similar claims invalidated justifies attorneys’ fees

by | Oct 30, 2025 |

Following a dismissal on the pleadings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after concluding that the asserted patent was objectively invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101. Linfo, LLC v. Aero Global, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-2952 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2025).

Linfo sued Aero Global alleging infringement of a patent directed to a system with methods and a user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats. The patented system would allow a user to sort through online hotel reviews, for example, by toggling a button to show only positive comments, or only comments related to room service.

One week after filing its complaint, Linfo proposed an early-stage settlement of $49,000, which Aero Global did not accept. Subsequently, in a separate case involving the same patent, another judge in the Southern District of New York found the patent invalid. After Aero notified the court of the decision, Linfo sought to dismiss the case without prejudice, and Aero opposed. Linfo then requested a stay pending appeal of the other’s judge’s decision, which the court denied. Linfo then contacted Aero to propose the parties “walk away to close the matter.” Aero responded that it would agree to dismissal if Linfo reimbursed Aero for its fees incurred. Linfo did not respond, after which the court concluded that Linfo was collaterally estopped from asserting infringement of the patent and granted Aero’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Aero thereafter sought attorneys’ fees under § 285, arguing that the asserted patent was objectively invalid under § 101. The district court agreed, finding that the litany of cases published after the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice v. CLS decision should have made clear to Linfo and its counsel that the asserted patent was directed precisely to the kind of abstract concept that Alice deemed unpatentable. Linfo argued that since the patent was issued after the Alice decision, it was reasonable for Linfo to assume the patent examiner considered Alice as part of the USPTO’s decision-making process. The district court rejected this argument, finding no evidence that the USPTO evaluated whether the patent was directed to patent eligible subject matter and, more importantly, finding that numerous cases post-dating the patent’s issuance invalidated patents similar to Linfo’s patent.

Linfo argued that it was reasonable for it to continue the case because it received favorable claim construction rulings and litigated against other defendants that had not filed § 101 challenges. The court rejected this argument, explaining that judicial construction of a patent claim after a claim construction hearing says little about whether that claim is eligible under § 101, given that claim construction and patent eligibility are distinct inquiries.

The court considered Linfo’s and its attorney’s litigation history and found several indicia suggesting that Linfo and its counsel brought this case to induce settlement rather than to reach the merits. The court noted that Linfo had asserted the challenged patent [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Associational standing requires concrete, non-speculative harm

by | Oct 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a lawsuit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for lack of associational standing since no member of the association had standing to sue. US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 24-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

US Inventor and National Small Business United (collectively, the plaintiffs) jointly filed a petition for rulemaking at the USPTO to amend the regulations that control the USPTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The plaintiffs proposed five instances in which the USPTO would have no discretion to institute an IPR or PGR. Separately, the USPTO issued a request for public comments regarding institution discretion two months after the plaintiffs filed their petition.

Eventually, the USPTO denied the petition, citing redundancy with the request for public comment. The USPTO assured the plaintiffs that their request would be considered as a public comment.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court claiming that the USPTO had committed three errors:

  • The USPTO’s assurance that the plaintiffs’ requests would be considered “in unspecified ‘future rulemaking’” violated its duty to conclude the matter in an appropriate amount of time, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
  • Under the APA, the USPTO failed to state adequate grounds for denial.
  • The USPTO violated the America Invents Act (AIA) by “fail[ing] to promulgate notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The USPTO filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had neither organizational nor associational standing. The plaintiffs appealed.

Because the issue of associational standing was not specific to patent law, the Federal Circuit applied the law of the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which reviews standing de novo.

Of the three requirements for associational standing (standing of at least one associational member, applicability of the issue to the association’s purposes, and individual member participation not required for the claim or relief), only the first was at issue.

The Federal Circuit concluded that since no member of the plaintiffs’ organizations had standing to sue, the plaintiffs themselves did not have associational standing. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to claim anything more than speculative harm to any member resulting from the USPTO’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition. The Court found the “risk” of patent cancellation during an IPR or PGR proceeding insufficiently “actual or imminent” to afford any member standing to sue.

The Federal Circuit explained that a requisite third-party action outside of the plaintiffs’ control would need to occur before any harm to the plaintiffs’ members could be concretely realized. Third-party actions, including the filing of a petition for an IPR or PGR proceeding, the USPTO’s institution of such proceeding, and the USPTO’s ultimate decision in such proceeding, constitute multiple steps in the chain of events that might result in harm [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Prevailing party: Dismissal with prejudice will do it

by | Sep 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court erred in denying fees and costs to the prevailing party (here, the defendant), but upheld the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Future Link Sys., LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Case Nos. 23-1056; -1057 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Stoll, Reyna, Bryson, JJ.)

Future Link sued Realtek for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. Realtek challenged service and personal jurisdiction and subsequently moved for Rule 11 sanctions. During discovery, Future Link produced a licensing agreement with a third party, under which the third party had agreed to pay a lump sum if Future Link sued Realtek. Shortly afterward, Future Link entered into a separate licensing agreement with Realtek covering the accused products and voluntarily dismissed the case.

Realtek moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and asserted that Future Link had filed objectively baseless lawsuits. The district court denied Realtek’s motions for fees and sanctions, did not address the motion for costs, and converted Future Link’s voluntary dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice.

Fees and costs

To seek fees and costs, a party must qualify as “the prevailing party.” In reviewing the district court’s decision on fees and costs, the Federal Circuit addressed Realtek’s prevailing party status under both § 285 and Rule 54(d).

Applying de novo review, the Federal Circuit concluded that Realtek was the prevailing party, despite the voluntary dismissal, because the district court had converted that dismissal to one with prejudice. The Federal Circuit emphasized that prevailing party analysis turns on whether there has been a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties. Citing its own precedent, the Court explained that a dismissal with prejudice constitutes such a change because it bars the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims against the same products.
The Court explained that a favorable ruling on the merits is not required. A defendant that successfully avoids liability, such as through dismissal with prejudice, can still be deemed the prevailing party.

Since the dismissal with prejudice prevented Future Link from reasserting its patent claims against the accused products, Realtek was the prevailing party. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285 and remanded the issue for consideration of whether the case was exceptional and fees were warranted. It likewise remanded the Rule 54(d) costs issue for initial determination.

Rule 11 sanctions

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Realtek had argued that Future Link’s prefiling investigation was inadequate and that the lawsuit was improperly motivated by a third-party payment arrangement, making that arrangement the but-for cause of the lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. First, it found that Future Link’s pre-suit investigation met Rule 11 standards: Future Link obtained and analyzed three accused products, prepared claim charts comparing asserted patent claims to the accused products, and investigated relevant optional features that it reasonably believed [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Derivation proceedings highlight race to file under AIA

by | Sep 11, 2025 | ,

In one of the first decisions regarding derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that an application earlier filer had not derived his claimed invention from a later-filing petitioner. Global Health Solutions, LLC v. Marc Selner, Case No. 2023-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Stoll, Stark, JJ.) (Goldberg, J., sitting by designation).

Global Health Solutions (GHS) and Marc Selner filed patent applications governed by the AIA and covering similar subject matter. Selner filed his application first. GHS filed a petition to institute derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 135, alleging that Selner’s patent claims were derived from Burnam, the single inventor on the GHS application.

During Board proceedings, the parties submitted evidence regarding the timing of their respective conceptions of the claimed inventions, including several email communications. Based on Selner’s evidence, the Board determined that he could not have derived the claimed invention from Burnam. The Board also rejected GHS’s argument that actual reduction to practice was necessary to complete conception of the claimed invention. GHS appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that while pre-AIA patent interference proceedings required a party alleging derivation to establish prior conception and communication of the invention to the opposing party, the AIA does not expressly define the evidentiary requirements for derivation petitions. Nevertheless, the Court, borrowing from its interference jurisprudence, reasoned that an AIA derivation proceeding similarly requires a showing of both conception and communication of the claimed invention. The Court emphasized, however, that standards articulated in case law from pre-AIA interference proceedings must be applied with caution and considered in light of the AIA’s distinct statutory framework.

The Federal Circuit determined that although the Board focused on which party had proof of the earliest conception (typically the dispositive issue in interference proceedings), it was harmless error. Under the AIA first-to-file framework, determination of the first to invent is not dispositive. The Court noted that because Selner was first to file, he only needed to show that his conception was independent of Burnam’s. Here, Selner’s proof of earlier conception was also proof of conception independent of Burnam, the Court noted.

The Federal Circuit also determined that the Board did not err in rejecting GHS’s argument that Selner failed to demonstrate invention in the absence of evidence of actual reduction to practice. The Court found that the Board appropriately addressed whether such a requirement (often applied in interference proceedings to complicated, unpredictable technology) applied to the invention at issue. The Court explained that Selner’s conception was complete either when he could define the invention by its method of preparation or when he had formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Selner’s earlier email communication to Burnam supported the finding that Selner had reached the requisite understanding to establish complete conception without the need for actual reduction to practice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in favor of Selner, finding no derivation.

Practice note: [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Blank Check: Vendor Can’t Claim Declaratory Judgment From Customer Lawsuits Alone

by | Jun 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, explaining that declaratory judgment jurisdiction does not “arise merely on the basis that a party learns of the existence of a patent owned by another or even perceives such a patent to pose a risk of infringement, without some affirmative act by the patentee.” Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, Case No. 23-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) (Taranto, Schall, Chen, JJ.)

Mitek develops a mobile image capture software development kit called MiSnap. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) sent letters to and filed infringement claims against several of Mitek’s bank customers. Mitek sought a declaratory judgment that it and its customers did not infringe four USAA patents related to mobile check deposits, arguing that it had standing based on a reasonable apprehension of suit and indemnity demands from its customers. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, which Mitek appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal, finding that the decision lacked adequate explanation and support.

On remand, the district court again analyzed Mitek’s two jurisdictional bases for its declaratory judgment action: potential liability for infringement and alleged demands for indemnity made by licensees after USAA sent letters seeking to license USAA patents. The district court again dismissed the case, determining that Mitek could not establish a case or controversy between USAA and Mitek as to infringement, and determining that indemnification agreements and USAA’s letters to Mitek customers did not create a reasonable potential for Mitek’s indemnification liability. Even if it had jurisdiction, the district court stated that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction, because the best means by which Mitek could defend the MiSnap software used by the banks was to intervene in a future litigation brought by USAA against a Mitek customer regarding the asserted patents. Mitek again appealed.

The threshold question for declaratory judgment jurisdiction is “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

Regarding Mitek’s infringement basis, the Federal Circuit found that Mitek did not establish a reasonable potential of the suit for infringement. The Court’s consideration also included post-filing events, including settlements of related customer suits and Patent & Trial Appeal Board decisions invalidating asserted patent claims. These developments further undermined any ongoing controversy. The Court then addressed the allegations of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement:

  • Direct Infringement. Mitek admitted that MiSnap alone did not perform all elements of any asserted claim. USAA also never accused MiSnap of satisfying every limitation of an asserted claim. Instead, MiSnap’s “unadulterated” software implemented by third-party banks failed to meet certain elements of the asserted claims. And although Mitek stated that it evaluated the complete mobile deposit system, Mitek could not have had a reasonable apprehension of suit based on testing its [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Speculation of Harm Isn’t Standing: Not Every Adverse Board Decision Is Ticket to Appeal

by | Jun 12, 2025 | ,

After assessing whether a patent owner had standing to appeal the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no injury in fact to support Article III jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

Dolby owns a patent covering a prediction method involving an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, claiming to be the sole real party in interest (RPI), filed an inter partes review (IPR) challenging several patent claims as anticipated and obvious. Dolby contested the challenge, identifying nine additional entities it argued should have been named as RPIs (alleged RPIs). The Board declined to rule on Dolby’s inclusion, however, and proceeded with Unified as the sole RPI.

In its final written decision, the Board found that Unified failed to establish the unpatentability of any challenged claims. Consistent with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s practice, it also declined to address the RPI dispute, finding it immaterial – there was no evidence the alleged RPIs were estopped from filing their own IPRs later or that Unified had advantageously or strategically omitted them. Dolby appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that when it reviews final Board decisions, its jurisdiction is constrained by Article III’s “Cases” and “Controversies” requirement. To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate:

  • A concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not speculative.
  • A causal link between the injury and the appellee’s challenged conduct.
  • A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling.

Dolby asserted standing to appeal the Board’s refusal to address the RPI dispute based on three grounds:

Its statutory right to appeal as a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 319.

  • The denial of its right to information under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
  • An injury in fact arising from potential breaches of license agreements by the alleged RPIs and possible conflicts of interest involving the Board’s administrative patent judges.

The Federal Circuit rejected Dolby’s argument that it had a right to appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision. The Court explained that the right to appeal a Board decision under the America Invents Act (AIA) requires Article III standing. The Court also dismissed Dolby’s argument for a statutory right to RPI information, finding that the AIA does not create an informational right. The Court explained that unlike statutes such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act, which expressly grant public access to information, the AIA lacks a public access provision and explicitly limits judicial review of IPR-related determinations, including RPI disclosures.

As to Dolby’s right to appeal the Board decision, the Federal Circuit found Dolby’s argument too speculative to establish standing, citing four key deficiencies:

Dolby failed to assert that any alleged RPIs were party to license agreements, undermining its claim of potential breach.



read more

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

by | May 22, 2025 | ,

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception of an invention does not require that the inventor appreciated the invention at the time of conception. Knowledge that an invention is successful is only part of the case for reduction to practice. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. et al. v. Broad Inst. et al., Case No. 22-1594 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, Regents) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, Broad) were each separately involved in research concerning CRISPR systems that “are immune defense systems in prokaryotic cells that naturally edit DNA.” At issue was the invention of the use of CRISPR systems to modify the DNA in eukaryotic cells. Regents and Broad filed competing patent applications resulting in an interference proceeding under pre-AIA law at the US Patent & Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences to determine which applicant had priority to the invention.

The main issue before the Board was a priority dispute over who first conceived of the invention and sufficiently reduced it to practice under pre-AIA patent law. Regents submitted three provisional patent applications dated May 2012, October 2012, and January 2013 and moved to be accorded the benefit of the earliest filing date, May 2012, for the purpose of determining priority. Alternatively, Reagents sought to be accorded either October 2012 or January 2013 as its priority date. The Board found that Regents’ first and second provisional applications (filed in May and October 2012, respectively) were not a constructive reduction to practice because neither satisfied the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The third provisional application, filed in January 2013, was the first to amount to a constructive reduction to practice of the counts in interference. The Board then ruled that Broad was the senior party for the purposes of priority in the interference proceeding because Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when a scientist submitted a manuscript to a journal publisher. The Board ruled that Regents failed to prove conception of the invention prior to Broad’s actual reduction to practice. Regents appealed.

Regents argued that in assessing conception, the Board “legally erred by requiring Regents’ scientist to know that their invention would work.” The Federal Circuit agreed and vacated the Board’s decision. As the Court explained, there are three stages to the inventive process: conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice. At the conception stage, “an inventor need not know that his invention will work for conception to be complete.” Rather, knowledge that the invention will work, “necessarily, can rest only on an actual reduction to practice.” The Board therefore legally erred by requiring Regents to know its invention would work to prove [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES