Category Archives: Written Description Requirements (WDR)

Ariad v. Lilly Comes Down (On Us) – Judge Lourie Rules!

In a majority opinion authored by Judge Lourie for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc (Appeal No. 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir. March 22, 2010)) (a PDF of which is attached to the end of this post), the court held that there … Continue reading

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

ARIAD v. LILLY – A Modest Proposal – Should Screening be Enough?

As the Fed. Cir. prepares to issue an en banc opinion on the existence and role of the written description requirement in section 112, it seems like a time for reflection. After taking the position that enablement should suffice for … Continue reading

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

Yes, Judge Michel, There have been some WDR Appeals!

During oral argument before the Fed. Cir. in Ariad v. Lilly, as reported by Patently-O, the government attorney was pressed for specific evidence that a separate WDR “is necessary for USPTO to perform its examination function”, e.g., that it serves a practical … Continue reading

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

A Look Back at the Roots of the Thorny WDR Problem

As the date for oral argument looms in Ariad v. Lilly, as does an en banc decision as to the existence and/or the role of the written description requirement (WDR) in Section 112, I thought it would be worthwhile to … Continue reading

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments