Last week Consumer Watchdog (“CW”) and Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) squared off at the Federal Circuit over CW’s appeal of the inter partes reexamination of WARF’s U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913 (the ‘913 Patent, entitled “Primate Embryonic Stem Cells”). Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 13-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013). CW’s appeal challenges the patent-eligibility of in vitro cultured human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) claimed in the ‘913 Patent.After the initial appeal was filed, the Federal Circuit on its own initiative asked the parties to brief the issue whether CW, as a third party requester, had standing to seek review of the USPTO affirmation of the ‘913 Patent claims. During a hearing on December 2nd, both parties addressed the Federal Circuit panel’s questions regarding CW’s claimed injury required to establish Article III standing.
On December 4th, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order requesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the United States to also address whether CW has standing to pursue its appeal to the Federal Circuit. The requested briefing is due January 6, 2014. The Court also asked the USPTO and the United States to participate in oral argument to be scheduled in January of 2014. CW and WARF each may file responsive briefs by January 16, 2014.
A recording of the December 2, 2013 oral argument is available on the Federal Circuit web page.
A copy of the December 4th, 2013 Order is available here.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.