Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided August 23, 2011No. 2010-1264Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDyk, Circuit Judge
I join Parts I and II of the majority’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent from Part III. In my view, the majority erred in holding that the asserted claims of the '112 *1311patent would not render obvious the asserted claims of the '620 and '447 patents (collectively the “Novartis patents”) and in holding that there was, accordingly, no interference-in-fact.
In the mid-1980s, the '112 patent and the Novartis patents were co-pending before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). At the time, there was concern that pathogens, like the HIV and hepatitis virus, were contaminating the supply of…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Donald W. Banner, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.