Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should printed publications be presumed to be
enabling when a party challenging the validity
of issued patent claims asserts that a printed
publication is anticipatory prior art, such that the
burden of proving that the printed publication is
nonenabling lies with the patentee?
2. Should the holding in Rasmusson v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp. , 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
2005), that "proof of efficacy is not required in
order for a reference to be enabled for purposes
of anticipation," be vacated or significantly
narrowed?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should printed publications be presumed to be enabling when challenging patent validity such that the burden of proving nonenabling lies with the patentee?
2026-02-20
Brief of Synthego Corp. in opposition submitted.
2026-01-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 20, 2026.
2025-12-31
Motion of Synthego Corp. for an extension of time submitted.
2025-12-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 21, 2026 to February 20, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-12-22
Response Requested. (Due January 21, 2026)
2025-12-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-05
Waiver of Synthego Corp. of right to respond submitted.
2025-12-05
Waiver of right of respondent Synthego Corp. to respond filed.
2025-11-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 15, 2025)
2025-09-02
Application (25A233) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 8, 2025.
2025-08-25
Application (25A233) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 9, 2025 to November 8, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.