Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
about
Category: Written Description
-
Federal Circuit's Expanding Application of the Written Description Requirement By Kevin E. Noonan — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court finding on summary judgment that claims relating to coronary artery stents coated with rapamycin analogs were invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement. The technology relates to drug-eluting coronary artery…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court for the Central District of California had properly granted summary judgment of invalidity with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,674,681 and 6,355,425. In particular, the panel affirmed the District Court's decision…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") of invalidity, holding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,070,775 invalid for lack of written description. Plaintiffs-Appellees Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. and New York University…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its fourth annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2010, we identified a dozen stories that we covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on biotech/pharma patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Today the Federal Circuit reversed a priority determination in an interference over claims to human beta-interferon, in an opinion teeming with irony, déjà vu, anachronism, and the peculiar effects on outcome caused by the form of interference counts. Two interferences, Nos. 105,334 and 105,337 between Junior Party David Goeddel and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The old proverb "success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan" comes to mind when considering the Federal Circuit's decision in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In the Court's decision, repeated failures, even by Lilly scientists in developing its osteoporosis drug Evista® (raloxifene hydrochloride), were…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — It's settled, then — unless the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, there is a separate written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The precedent developed since Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. is good law. This is the judgment of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — At the outset of the en banc oral argument in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. last week, Chief Judge Michel asked Lilly's counsel whether Lilly had preserved the written description issue by timely objecting to District Court Judge Zobel's jury instruction (see "Ariad v. Lilly: Oral…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Monday, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (see "Ariad v. Lilly: Oral Argument"). During the hearing, several members of the Court as well as counsel for the Government focused on perceived differences between the positions…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Oral argument in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. was heard on Monday before an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit. Counsel for Ariad (John M. Whealan), Lilly (Charles E. Lipsey) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Mark R. Freeman) argued before an active Court,…
Patent Docs 