ARTICLE
22 September 2020

The Risks Of Not Finding Out

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
The case of Trans Ova Genetics, LC v. XY, LLC, No. 2019-2312 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2020) Rule 36 affirmance of IPR2018-00250 demonstrates that the Federal Circuit, in a close case...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The case of Trans Ova Genetics, LC v. XY, LLC, No. 2019-2312 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2020) Rule 36 affirmance of IPR2018-00250 demonstrates that the Federal Circuit, in a close case, can use the burden of proof to decide which parties loses. In this case, the loser was Trans Ova, who brought an IPR against XY, but never took steps to find out exactly what Green actually did. That was critical to the case of whether a prior art article was "of another." By not finding out, Trans Ova could not carry its burden of proof and lost.

For more detailed analysis of this case, please see on Finnegan's AIA Blog.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More