Category Archives: Written Description Requirements (WDR)

BSC v. J & J – Written Description Requirement Spreads its Wings

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Warren Woessner

On June 7th, in a Fed. Cir. panel decision written by Judge Moore, the panel affirmed the invalidation of four J&J patents (a copy of these patents is available at the end of this post) for failure to meet the … Continue reading →

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

Centocor v. Abbott: Fed. Cir. Takes New Written Description Requirement Out For A Spin.

Posted on February 25, 2011 by Warren Woessner

In an important post-Ariad decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision that Abbott’s Humira infringed claims of a Centocor patent that could have cost Abbott $1.67 billion in damages. (A copy of the decision is at the end … Continue reading →

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

Director Kappos Comments on Ariad v. Lilly

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Warren Woessner

USPTO David Kappos recently posted a comment on the Fed. Cir. decision in Ariad v. Lilly in which he noted that the Fed. Cir. held that broad functional claims (presumably mechanism-of-action claims) must be supported by sufficient species (read “working examples”). While … Continue reading →

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

Centocor v. Abbott Labs. – “Antibody Exception” To Written Description Requirement Under Fire

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Warren Woessner

Abbott Laboratories markets a recombinant human antibody, HUMIRA, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. This antibody binds to a receptor on TNF. NYU and Centocor own US Pat No 7070775 which claims an isolated recombinant anti-TNF-a antibody (Ab) comprising a … Continue reading →

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