News & Analysis as of

Section 112 Written Descriptions Claim Construction

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: Written Description and Enablement Depend on What a Patent 'Claims,' Not What the Claims Cover

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Searching for Claim Support in a Patent Specification? You Better Blaze a Trail

Last month the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) decision finding that the University of Minnesota’s patent claim directed to the anti-cancer drug sofosbuvir was not adequately supported by the written...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Is SCOTUS Looking to Change the Enablement Requirement for Patents?

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Case Studies and Trends at the PTAB Involving 35 U.S.C. § 112

Over the last 20-plus years, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases concerning written description and enablement have become a hot-button issue in the chemical and life sciences practices. The year 2021 was no...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2019

Knobbe Martens on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Yet Another Pharmaceutical Patent Falls Under the Scrutiny of 35 U.S.C. § 112

Last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed that Idenix Pharmaceuticals will not be the proud recipient of what was previously regarded as the largest damages award ever recorded in a U.S. patent case. In fact, the majority’s...more

Knobbe Martens

Large Quantity of Routine Experimentation Can Be “Undue Experimentation”

Knobbe Martens on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Federal Circuit Prescription to Take Away the Pain for Generics - Intellectual Property News

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s ruling of validity under the § 112 written description requirement effectively opening the door for a number of generic drug manufacturers to enter the market with a...more

Sunstein LLP

January 2019 IP Update - New Guidelines Proposed for Functional Claiming in Computer-Related Inventions

Sunstein LLP on

In a second notice of proposed rulemaking (besides the one for patent eligibility) announced January 4, 2019 and published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, the Patent and Trademark Office has proposed guidelines...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide