Search for: "IN RE: EDWARD TOBINICK "
Results 1 - 2
of 2
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2014, 8:43 pm
” Based on this construction, the Board found that Edward Tobinick’s (“Tobinick”) patent application did not contain written description support for the interference count. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
However, Rembrandt later learned that J&J’s expert had testified falsely and the Federal Circuit ordered the case re-opened under R.60(b)(3) that empowers district courts to revisit final judgments after a showing of “fraud …, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party. [read post]
