Category Archives: Written Description Requirements (WDR)

Synthes v. Spinal Kinetics – When “Structure” is Not Enough

Posted on November 4, 2013 by Warren Woessner

  A guest post from Domenico Ippolito of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 2013-1047, -1059, (Fed.Cir. Oct 29, 2013) concerns a medical device patent, but addresses issues common to all patents.  The primary … Continue reading →

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Novozymes Loses “Possession” Of Its Enzyme

Posted on November 1, 2013 by Warren Woessner

I am not sure how I missed this decision, which came down on July 22nd, but it offers a rather scary hi-def picture as to where the written description requirement of s. 112 has been and where it is headed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Wyeth v. Abbott Labs. – Picking Plaintiff’s Poison

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Warren Woessner

In July of 2011, I wrote a post for this blog on BSC v. J&J, a Fed. Cir. decision in which four J&J patents claiming stents eluting rapamycin, a drug that inhibits restenosis after balloon angioplasty, were held invalid for … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Supreme Court Declines To Review “New And Improved” Written Description Requirement

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Warren Woessner

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied Centocor’s (now “Janssen”) petition for cert. and so let stand a ruling that Centocor’s patents on humanized monoclonal antibodies (covering Abbott’s Humira) are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement (WDR) of … Continue reading →

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment