Category: Enablement

By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi last week in an extended session with argument from the parties and the U.S. government.  Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey Lamken, Respondents by Paul Clement, and the Government by Colleen Sindak. The Justices showed a great deal of interest, albeit with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – During oral argument before the Supreme Court on Monday in Amgen v. Sanofi, all three advocates (Jeff Lamken for Amgen, Paul Clement for Sanofi, and Colleen Sindzak for the United States) had reason to reference and discuss an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Gregory Winter and…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 U.S.C. § 112(a).  While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 U.S.C. § 112(a).  While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 U.S.C. § 112(a).  While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 U.S.C. § 112(a).  While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 U.S.C. § 112(a).  While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…

By Kevin E. Noonan – Amgen recently filed its Reply brief to the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi.  While a conventional proportion of Amgen's Reply is directed to arguments Respondent Sanofi made in its brief, at trial, and before the Federal Circuit, significant portions of the Reply brief are focused on the Federal Circuit's grounds…

By Kevin E. Noonan – Sanofi and Regeneron filed their brief at the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi, in which Amgen seeks to have the Court overturn the District Court's grant of JMOL in the issue of whether Amgen's claims were invalid for non-enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see "Amgen Files Its Principal Brief…

By Kevin E. Noonan – 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 filed its opening brief addressing the Question Presented in the granted certiorari petition: Whether…