Interference 103,781
5,500,365 (Fischhoff et al., U.S. 5,500,365, issued Mar. 19,
1996, assigned to Monsanto Company). Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen
Plant Science, Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1359-61, 59 USPQ2d 1930,
1931-32 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
November 10, 1999 - In an action brought by Mycogen Plant
Science, Inc. and Agrigenetics Inc. against Monsanto Company for
infringement of plaintiff’s patent (Adang et al., U.S. Patent
5,380,831, issued January 10, 1995, from U.S. Application
08/057,191, filed May 3, 1993), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California entered an order (Mycogen Plant
Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 95-CV-653 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10,
1999)(Paper No. 127, Exh. A) granting defendant’s motion for
summary judgment that Claims 1-12 of Mycogen’s ‘831 patent are
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) and/or § 103 because Monsanto
invented the subject matter thereof before Mycogen, as determined
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in
Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 61 F.Supp.2d 199
(D. Del. 1999), affirmed in Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto
Inc., 243 F.3d 1316, 58 USPQ2d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and denied
defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the contested claims
of Mycogen’s ‘831 patent are invalid for noncompliance with the
enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as moot (Paper No. 127, Exh. A).
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007