Interferences

An Interference dispute is a dispute over the ownership of an invention that is litigated in a special tribunal in the Patent Office according to special rules just applicable to interferences. Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds has successfully litigated many Interference disputes. Such work requires and attorney to be both well versed in litigation as well as well versed in the rules and practices of the Patent Office for Interferences. Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds has expertise in both areas and has successfully combined that knowledge and experience to achieve excellent results for clients provoking or defending in Interference matters. The following are examples of our experience in developing strategies for interference disputes.

• Represented the senior party in a patent interference involving encapsulated cells producing viral particles. The opposing party conceded priority of the subject matter of the interference and requested judgment adverse to it.
• Represented a major research-based pharmaceutical company as the junior party in an interference involving antibodies and ligands. Even though we represented the junior party, the opposing party requested judgment adverse to its application shortly after the interference was declared.
• Represented a major research-based pharmaceutical company as the senior party in a patent interference involving human chemotactic cytokine. After the parties filed initial papers and a list of preliminary motions, we achieved a settlement that included a process for determining priority of invention. Upon determining priority, the opposing party had to request judgment adverse to its patent.
• Represented a major medical diagnostic service provider in connection with a patent application involving a nucleic acid. During prosecution, the applicant was directed by the Examiner to copy claims from a patent owned by another company. We developed a strategy that resulted in the issuance of patents on noninterfering subject matter, without the expense of an interference.
• Represented a leading international research institution as the junior party in a patent interference involving nucleic acids and proteins. We succeeded in determining priority as to a number of interfering inventions and were successful in requesting that the Patent Office redeclare the interference to add multiple patent applications and counts. As a result, a patent issued to our client.
• Represented a major research-based pharmaceutical company as the senior party in a patent interference involving hyaluronan synthase. Our client was awarded priority on the interfering subject matter, and the application proceeded to issuance as a patent.
• Represented a substantial biotechnology company as the junior party in a patent interference involving a cross-linked protein composition. After the interference was declared, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement under which our client obtained a license with only a nominal royalty.
• Represented a substantial biotechnology company as the senior party in a patent interference involving a method of treating a disease with an antibody. The opposing party conceded priority of the subject matter of the interference, and requested judgment adverse to it, after two of its noninterfering claims were removed from the interference.
• Represented a small manufacturer in a patent interference and litigation arising out of a contract dispute over payment for services and ownership of technology involving an induction foil cap sealer. We obtained a settlement that was favorable to our client.
• Represented a world-renowned cancer research and treatment hospital as the junior party in a patent interference involving monocyte chemotactic protein 1. Even though we represented the junior party, the opposing party conceded priority as to DNA claims, resulting in the entry of judgment adverse to the opposing party on those claims.
• Represented a leading manufacturer of optical products in a patent interference proceeding against a global competitor. The matter was settled with a favorable patent cross license.
• Represented the junior party, a startup biotech company, against an international pharmaceutical company in an interference involving a recombinant protein. We established the priority rights of our client and obtained the patent for them despite having the second filing date and the second invention date.