5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more
On January 10, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for assessing enablement in view of Amgen v. Sanofi and other recent court cases (“the Guidelines”). The Guidelines state that they are not intended to “announce any major...more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued "Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v....more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Guidelines, applicable to any technology, for ascertaining compliance with the enablement requirement in view of the U.S. Supreme Court...more
On December 8, Partner Nena Bains and Counsel Yifan Mao presented “Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement After Amgen” at the 24th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute organized by...more
In Baxalta, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding from the District of Delaware (Judge Timothy B. Dyk) that claims 1-4, 19 and 20 of Baxalta’s patent directed...more
In Baxalta Incorporated v. Genentech, Inc., 2022-1461, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting Genentech’s motion for summary judgment that claims 1-4, 9, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 (“the...more
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...more
In earlier times, the Federal Circuit, responding to efforts by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reject patent applications directed to biotechnology-related inventions, held (In re Brana) that utility of such...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Amgen’s broad genus claims to cholesterol-lowering antibodies are invalid for lack of enablement....more
Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more
This month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the closely watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally defined genus claims. Genus...more
In May, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, which addressed the statutory enablement requirement for patents. The decision is consistent with ongoing efforts to strike a...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...more
A week ago Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Amgen v. Sanofi case, affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that the claims of the two patents Amgen asserted against Sanofi...more
The Court held in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. __ (2023) that the "full scope" of the invention defined by the claims must be enabled by the specification. "The more one claims, the more one must enable." Id., at p 13....more
Summary - In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District of Delaware and Federal Circuit findings that Amgen’s functionally defined patent claims to a class of therapeutic antibodies are invalid as...more
Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al, No. 21-757 (S. Ct. May 18, 2023) The Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision today concerning the enablement requirement found in Section 112 of the Patent Act. Specifically, the...more
The questions from the high court during oral argument at the end of March 2023 were fairly telling of the 9-0 ruling that came down yesterday in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757). In fact, it did not come as much of a...more
The Supreme Court's consideration of the standards for satisfying the enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been occasioned for the first time in over a century by the Court's granting certiorari in Amgen v....more
We’re still waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. But in the meantime, the Federal Circuit continues to provide insights into 35 U.S.C. § 112’s requirement to “enable” persons of skill in the...more
Facing what is likely to be something of an uphill battle in seeking to have the Federal Circuit's decision against it in Amgen v Sanofi overturned before a not always patent-friendly Supreme Court, Amgen in late December...more
ACI’s Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents is back in person on June 2–3 in New York City. Our reimagined 2022 conference will provide practical insights on how to implement bullet-proof patent prosecution tactics,...more
A recent post-grant review decision once again reminds patentees of the increasing scrutiny that claims are facing under the written description and enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a). In this case,...more
In today's connected global economy, obtaining patent protection in multiple jurisdictions is the best way for companies to protect their IP on a global scale. But every jurisdiction has different patentability requirements...more