Dionex v. Agilent: interference case

The outcome of the interference case:


Dionex Softron GmbH (“Dionex”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) judgment in an interference proceeding, awarding priority to Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Agilent”). The parties dispute priority, claim construction, written description support, conception, and reduction to practice. We affirm.


Claim copying


This case involves an unusual history, in which the parties copied one another’s claims in separate attempts to provoke an interference. First, Agilent substantially copied Dionex’s claims but, nonetheless, failed to provoke an interference.1 Agilent then amended its claims, and Dionex subsequently copied those amended claims verbatim, resulting in the interference at issue. The instituted interference was between Agilent’s U.S. Patent Application No. 15/965,402 and Dionex’s U.S. Patent Application No. 16/016,866.