Banner & Witcoff is a preferred provider for Fortune 500 companies, midlevel companies, and technology-focused start-up companies. Our attorneys have extensive experience in patent interference practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and its predecessor court, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
The firm has actively represented clients in all facets of patent interferences, including pre-interference strategies to anticipate and provoke interferences, preliminary motion practice and preparing preliminary statements, taking testimony and framing the issues for final hearing, and in federal court where interference decisions are reviewed and appealed.
Our interference experience has encompassed a diverse group of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, recombinant DNA, polymer chemistry, methods of shaping plastics, encryption technology, and chemical sensors. From pre-filing strategy through final judgment, our patent interference practice is procedurally intense and vitally important.
Banner & Witcoff has represented clients in the following patent interferences:
- Dudley v. Patel, Interference No. 106,045 (Pat No. 8,828,428)
- Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Takeda GmbH, Interference No. 105,977 (Pat No. 7,598,273)
- Elbert v. Lovette, Interference No. 105,793 (Pat No. 6,813,470)
- Rizk v. Neugebauer, Interference No. 105,699 (Pat No. 6,263,804)
- Ward v. Kitao, Interference No. 105,636 (Pat No. 6,436,706)
- Amsel v. Zhang, Interference No. 105,550 (Pat No. D539,785)
- Chamandy v. He, Interference No. 105,534 (Pat No. 7,102,657)
- Chien v. Gilbert, Interference No. 105,469 (Pat No. 5,330,893)
- Johnston v. Dubensky, Jr., Interference No. 105,456 (Pat No. 6,015,694)
- Fleckenstein v. Hayward, Interference No. 105,251 (Pat No. 6,264,958)
- Herman v. Barnes, Interference No. 104,812 (Pat No. 6,144,679)
- Lee v. Vogelstein, Interference No. 104,066 (Pat No. 6,800,617)
- Khanna v. Kimura, Interference No. 105,103 (Pat No. 5,935,990)