Interference 103,781
statutory expiration date of Adang et al., U.S. Patent 5,567,862,
issued October 22, 1996.
March 12, 2001 - On appeal from the decision of 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),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
. . . affirm[ed] the verdict of noninfringement based
on patent invalidity due to prior invention pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). This makes it unnecessary to
address the finding of lack of enablement pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d at 1320,
58 USPQ2d at 1033 (Paper No. 146).
May 30, 2001 - On appeal from the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California in Mycogen
Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 95-CV-653 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 10, 1999)(Paper No. 127, Exh. A), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and
remanded. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d
1306, 1309-1310, 58 USPQ2d 1891, 1892-1893 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The Federal Circuit concluded at 1309, 58 USPQ2d at 1893, that:
. . . the district court improperly resolved disputed
questions of material fact pertaining to the issue of
prior invention, and we therefore reverse the court’s
ruling on summary judgment that the ‘831 patent is
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). We decline to affirm
the summary judgment of invalidity on the alternative
ground of non-enablement, as urged by Monsanto, but
leave to the district court the task of determining in
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007