In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more
With only two precedential IP decisions coming down from the Federal Circuit in the second half of September, pickings were a little slim for blogging. That said, the opinion in Baxalta v. Genentech (2022-1461) — drafted by...more
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-2217, 2023-1021 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent case this week, the Court considered questions...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 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 decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35...more
The Supreme Court on Friday, Nov. 3, granted Amgen’s petition for certiorari on the second of the Questions Presented in its petition...more
On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in IQASR v. Wendt, found that a district court did not err in its scrutiny of the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence presented to find U.S. Patent No....more
Patent eligibility is a bit of a mess these days. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Alice v. CLS Bank decision six years ago, the distinction between what might be subject matter that can be patented and what is...more
In the Supreme Court's recent clarifying campaign through the Federal Circuit's U.S. patent law jurisprudence, one section of the statute, 35 U.S.C. §112(a) has been noticeably left unscathed. Indeed, avoidance of this...more
In a breathtaking decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patented method of making an automobile drive shaft is not eligible to be patented because it is “directed to a natural law.” In so ruling, the court has...more
The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the...more
On April 17, 2019, Senators Tillis (R-NC) and Coons (D-DE), along with a bipartisan group of three members of the House of Representatives, announced the release of a framework on Section 101 patent reform. Senators Tillis...more
We wrote earlier about the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in patent eligibility and seemingly unintended confusion between the patent eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the remaining patentability requirements...more