5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling of invalidity for lack of written description, finding that the district court erred in its analysis of written description because patents...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the asserted method of treatment patent was valid and infringed because safety and efficacy are not patent concerns. The Federal Circuit...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
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757) on Monday, March 27, 2023. The highly contentious question before the high court focuses what an applicant must show to meet the enablement...more
The Supreme Court's (re)consideration of the enablement requirement expected in its decision later this year in Amgen v. Sanofi may be the most closely watched patent case since AMP v. Myriad Genetics. But in a decision...more
Just days after agreeing to review the scope of the enablement requirement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the Supreme Court denied Juno Therapeutics, Inc.’s (Juno) request to review the scope of the written...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
Addressing the issue of written description in the context of antibody-related genus claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $1.2 billion jury verdict and found genus claims using functional...more
In the recent case of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidation of certain of Amgen’s antibody patent claims, concluding that the claims were not “enable[d]” under 35...more
A little less than four years ago, the Federal Circuit rendered a decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi that brought clarity to how the Court (and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) should apply the written description requirement...more
A recent Supreme Court petition for certiorari alleges that genus claims are no longer viable under the Federal Circuit’s recent application of enablement and written description law.The petition has huge ramifications not...more
You’ve finished drafting the patent application for a critical, clinical stage invention. The scientific team wrote up the examples and they even included comparative data. You’ve finalized the claims and specification....more
In a case relating to compounds for the treatment of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for lack of enablement...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Synthesizing and screening tens of thousands of...more
In a hard-fought patent battle involving “groundbreaking” work by both parties, Chief Judge Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that plaintiff Idenix’s patent for treating Hepatitis C virus...more
Once considered parasites, free riders, or “opportunistic pathogens,” in recent years the roughly 100 trillion symbiotic bacteria that inhabit the various tissues of the human body have been increasingly recognized for their...more
Addressing obviousness issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that patents were valid and infringed, despite undeniably including recitations falling within a prior art...more
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops against obviousness, written...more
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops. This decision shows that it is still...more
In Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that two Orange Book-listed patents for Cephalon’s FENTORA® product were invalid, but affirmed the district court’s...more