Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog

Falko-Gunter Falkner, et al. v. Inglis, et al.

Posted in Opinion Commentary by Jake Ward on June 5, 2006

(Fed. Cir. 2006, 05-1324) 

On appeal from a BPAI interference decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Faulkner argued, in essence, that the Inglis applications do not adequately describe and enable the disputed invention.  

The technology at issue included a method of making vaccines safer by deleting or inactivating an essential gene from the genome of a virus.  In particular, the subject matter was to related vaccines in which the vector virus was a poxvirus.    The Faulkner applications described poxvirus vectors in detail, including five examples of preparation and use of poxvirus vaccines.  In contrast, the Inglis applications described poxvirus vectors only in general, with specific examples related instead to herpes viruses, and did not describe which sequences in the viral genome were “essential” or “non-essential.”