直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

The Risks of Not Finding Out

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.   

Tags

inventorship, anticipation, prior art, prior use (35 USC § 102), burden of proof

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

*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.

Related Insights

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Seminar

IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts

May 15, 2026

Taipei

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP