Legal Opinion
Cell Genesys, Inc. v. Applied Research Systems ARS Holding, N.V.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 13, 2007No. 05-12448-MLW, 04-11810-MLWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, District Judge.
I. SUMMARY
These consolidated cases are appeals from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”), which is part of the Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146. Cell Genesys, Inc. (“CGI”) asserts that the Board erred in finding that some of the claims in its U.S. Patent Application No. 08/102,390 (the “'390 application”) were invalid and, therefore, Applied Research Systems ARS Holding N.V.’s (“ARS”) U.S. Patent No. 5,272,071 (the “'071 patent”) did not interfere with those claims. ARS asserts…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Macaulay v. AnasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Invitrogen Corp. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS, HARVARDDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
- AlphaVax, Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
- Troy v. Samson Manufacturing Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013