Priority claim to foreign filing awarded in interference; disclosure in compliance with section 112

August 21, 2007
Post by Blog Staff

The Federal Circuit yesterday addressed the requirements for the use of a foreign filing date as a priority date in a U.S. interference proceeding. The court awarded the interference party the priority benefit of the foreign filing date based on the "constructive reduction to practice of an invention whose disclosure is in compliance with the requirements of § 112." As a result, the court reversed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' finding of priority and awarded priority to the applicant relying on the foreign filing date.

More on Frazer v. Schlegel after the jump.

The case involved patent applications from two groups covering the production of a vaccine for a human papillomavirus (HPV), which has been shown to cause cervical cancer. On June 25, 1992, Schlegel filed a U.S. application. Frazer filed an Australian patent application on July 19, 1991, subsequently filed a PCT application on July 20, 1992 which claimed priority from the Australian application, and on January 19, 1994 filed a U.S. application which claimed priority to both the PCT and Australian application. Frazer's U.S. application claiming priority to the Australian application was placed in interference with the U.S. Schlegel application.

The key issue on appeal was whether or not Frazer could claim the priority date of the Australian application. The Board held that Frazer was not able to claim the earlier date because the Australian applications disclosure was inadequate and that the Australian application did not demonstrate "conception" of the invention in the PCT application.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. Specifically, the court stated:

Although the Board analyzed the Australian application in terms of "conception," when reliance is on a patent document already filed, the question is whether the document discloses the invention of the count by meeting the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, for a filed application serves as a constructive reduction to practice of its content.

The court noted that "[i]t is not disputed that Frazer's Australian application described virus-like particles and their production from recombinant vaccine virus" and that "acknowledgment of the complexities of the science does not negate the disclosure of the production of these virus-like particles." Further, the court stated that "the description of the procedures used, and the successful production of the virus-like particles there achieved and reported, disclose and enable a species within the count." Because there was a constructive reduction to practice and the disclosure was in compliance with the § 112 requirements, the court ruled that Frazer was entitled to the priority benefit of the Australian filing date, and therefore priority in the interference.

To read the full decision in Frazer v. Schlegel, click here.

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.