September 21, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kyu Yun Kim; Thomas Lee Irving; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Stacy Lewis*
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.
*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe
November 19, 2026
Webinar
Seminar
U.S. Patent Litigation 2026: Key Developments, Strategic Trends, and Winning Before Trial
November 6, 2026
Taipei
Seminar
The Augmented Practice 2026: Balancing AI Opportunity, Governance, and Risk
November 5, 2026
San Francisco
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.