Opinion ID: 612344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interference In Fact

Text: The patent laws recognize two types of actions involving interfering claims. An interference action under 35 U.S.C. § 135 can be declared by the PTO [w]henever an application is made for a patent which ... would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent. An interfering patents action under 35 U.S.C. § 291 permits [t]he owner of an interfering patent [to seek] relief against the owner of another by civil action. This case is an appeal from an interfering patents suit under § 291 to determine the priority of invention between certain issued patents. See Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir.1998). The first step in a § 291 interfering patents action is the determination whether an interference in fact exists between claims of the two patents. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed.Cir. 2003). This requires application of a two-way test, which, as discussed below, involves underlying questions of anticipation and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Id. at 932. Accordingly, the standards of review for an interference in fact mirror those of anticipation and obviousness inquiries. Id. Anticipation and obviousness require the court to compare the properly construed claims to the available prior art. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2003). If each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, then the claim is invalid under § 102 for anticipation. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review a finding of anticipation for clear error. Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed.Cir. 2007). Obviousness under § 103 is a question of law based on underlying factual determinations. Oakley, 316 F.3d at 1339. We review the legal conclusion of obviousness de novo and the underlying findings of fact for clear error. Id. An interference in fact under § 291 requires that the two patents claim the same or substantially the same subject matter. Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 304 F.3d 1256, 1263. (Fed. Cir.2002). Interfering subject matter is defined by courts in the same manner as in the PTO  by using the two-way test. Medichem, 353 F.3d at 934. Under the PTO's regulations, [a]n interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. 37 C.F.R. § 41.203(a). In other words, for two claims to interfere, each claim must anticipate or render obvious the other; failure of either claim to anticipate or render obvious the other defeats the test for interfering patents. Medichem, 353 F.3d at 935 ([T]here can be no interference-in-fact without satisfaction of each leg of the two-way test.).