Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Risks Of Not Finding Out

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

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

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 StatesLitigation, 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.

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