Tag Archives: centocor v. abbott

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

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

Canadian Ruling Supports “Antibody Exception”

In my recent post on the Centocor v. Abbott decision, I noted that the Fed. Cir. had at least preserved the “antibody exception,” which I define as permitting broad claims to structurally uncharacterized antibodies (monoclonal and polyclonal) if the structure … Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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