Anthony M. Zupcic

Anthony M. Zupcic


Partner, New York

Anticipating your opponents’ next move is what has made Tony Zupcic a leading interference practitioner. With over forty years of experience, Tony has been lead attorney in well over sixty interferences since the 1980’s while also being involved in other complex USPTO proceedings such as reexaminations and more recently IPRs.
Case Highlight
Tony secured judgment of priority in an interference on behalf of Gilead and against Idenix in a class of novel nucleosides that are useful for treating NCV and a second judgment directed to a method of treating HCV with a nucleoside compound.
What Others Say
  • “main strengths are an intimate knowledge of the rules of interference proceedings and immense practical experience-he has a knack for predicting outcomes” (IAM 1000 The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners 2012)
  • “high quality work” (Legal 500 2008)
  • “beginning his career as a USPTO patent examiner stands him in good stead when it comes to preparing and prosecuting applications” (Legal 500 2007)
Representative Matters
  • Gilead v. Idenix in interference No. 105,871 involving novel nucleoids useful for treating HCV and interference no. 105,981 involving method of treating HCV with a nucleoside compound.
  • IBM against Rambus in interference Nos. 105,467 and 105,911 involving memory systems.
  • Amgen against Human Genome Sciences in Interference No. 105,613 involving a key receptor in the immune system.
  • INA against Delphi in Interference No. 105,468 involving automobile valve lifters.
  • Medtronic Navigation, Inc. against GE Medical Systems Global Technology in Interference No. 105,415 involving surgical navigation technology.
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum Fur Infektionsforschung Gmb, exclusive licensor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, against Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in Interference No. 105,298 involving epothilone C and epothilone D.
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb against Tolerance Therapeutics, LLC in Interference Nos. 105,105; 105,106; and 105,107 involving fusion proteins.
  • Matsushita v. Sakaguchi in Interference No. 105,263 relating to semiconductors.
  • Stiller v. Heid in Interference No. 105,044 involving a specimen transport mechanism.
  • West v. Van Damme in Interference No. 105,031 involving photosensitive printing plates.
  • Shinomiya v. Hanya in Interference No. 104,097 involving liquid crystal displays.
  • Riseman v. Kobayashi in Interference No. 103,780 relating to laser beam printer technology.
  • Kaneko v. Sakaegi in Interference No. 103,000 involving camera white balance.
  • Hoshino v. Tanaka in Interference No. 103,208 relating to autofocus.
  • Katayama v. Levien in Interference No. 103,587 involving halftone imaging.
  • Canon Inc. against various parties in Interference Nos. 102,090; 102,091, 102,092; 102,323; 103,212; 103,187; and 103,213, all relating to liquid crystal display technology.
  • Shibuzaki v. Furuichi in Interference No. 101,822 relating to copy magnification in an electrophotographic copying machine.
  • Lawrence v. Suzuki in Interference No. 101,692 relating to sheet sorters.
  • Ito v. Masuda in Interference No. 101,278 relating to a scanning mechanism in an electrophotographic copying machine.
Events / Publications
News & Press