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
After reading the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, I thought of the doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice, given both the decision’s and the doctrine’s focus on unpredictability in the art....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
JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. KITE PHARMA, INC. Before Moore, Prost, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Knowledge of a common general structure and the...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Federal Circuit held that the use of broad functional claim language raises the bar for enablement. Specifically, the court held that defining an antibody based on binding to a certain protein...more
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2016-00006, holding claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393 (“the ’393 patent”) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). All of the claims are...more
On February 28, 2017, the PTAB held that the petitioner Lupin had not shown that the challenged claims in two of Pozen’s patents were invalid (IPR2015-01773 and IPR2015-01775). These cases show the advantage of using...more