cgt2009, If USPTO deems there is an interference on BTA patent application, they would not have granted BTA the patent. Read the Patent Act 1990 and try to understand the patenting process so that you know what interference is.
Once BCRX raised the "interference" issue when the BTA patent application was open to opposition, UPTSO Board would have examined and heard the issues and from the facts of the ASX announcement UPTSO granted BTA the patent. The Board is an UPTSO administrative process and BCRX can take it further for JUDICIAL REVIEW.
You are assuming the BCRX claim is the same claim as the BTA claim!! A novel or innovation may involve a small change. There is not enough information (for us here) to determine why the BCRX application has not been granted a patent. I had earlier speculated that there may be a "prior art" very similar to BCRX claims and BTA claims.
And the fact that UPTSO had granted BTA the patent shows that UPTSO found BTA claim had satisfied the invention criteria and by virtue of the fact that UPTSO has still not granted BCRX a patent,BCRX has not yet satisfy the patenting criteria. IF UPTSO had granted BCRX a patent (WHICH THEY HAVE NOT!) a similar situation would have arose like Tamiflu and Relenza!
BTA Price at posting:
86.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
