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
-
By Donald Zuhn — With oral argument before the Supreme Court in In re Bilski now concluded, patent practitioners can begin to turn their attention toward the next big patent case awaiting oral argument: the Federal Circuit's en banc rehearing of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., which is scheduled for December 7th. …
-
By Donald Zuhn — The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today decided that the appeal in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. warrants en banc consideration. In June, Ariad filed a petition for rehearing of the decision issued by the Federal Circuit on April 3 (see "Ariad Files Petition for…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit clarified the role of the written description requirement in interference practice today in an opinion by Judge Rader, one of the Court's most severe critics of its written description jurisprudence. Unlike the situation where the written description requirement is used to invalidate patents (which is the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Yesterday, Ariad Pharmaceuticals filed a petition for a panel rehearing of the decision issued by the Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. In that decision, issued on April 3, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of Lilly's motion for JMOL in view of…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In a Breakout Session entitled "The Narrowing Scope of Biotech Patent Claims: What Does It Mean for the Industry?" at last week's BIO International Convention, a panel consisting of Anne Dollard, the Deputy General Counsel and Chief Patent Counsel for Takeda San Francisco; Thomas Kim, Senior Director of Intellectual Property…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Beginning with Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, the Federal Circuit has applied the written description requirement stringently in many art areas as a requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, that is separate from the enablement requirement. Judge Linn, at least, believes…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Biotechnology patent law faces the consequences of two decisions handed down last week by the Federal Circuit: In re Kubin and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. The first of these illustrates the folly of ignoring the wisdom of the In re Deuel decision, in applying established…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts's denial of Lilly's motion for JMOL in view of a jury verdict of infringement and validity of the asserted claims, and affirming the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The sky isn't falling. But it's becoming increasingly clear that when the Supreme Court sneezes, the Federal Circuit gets a cold (if not pneumonia). And the questions continue about whether the Federal Circuit as currently constituted has the institutional fortitude to exercise its Congressional mandate to harmonize patent law…
-
By Donald Zuhn — As we reported yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument today in In re Kubin (see "In re Kubin to Be Argued before the Federal Circuit on Thursday"). Kevin Noonan will be providing a complete analysis of the oral argument in this case in a subsequent post. One interesting aside,…
Patent Docs 