Tag Archives: Lilly

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Lilly V. Sun

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Warren Woessner

In my post of May 6, 2011, I discussed the facts in some detail in this controversial Fed. Cir. decision and concluded that the majority of the Fed. Cir. got this one wrong – the court voted 5-4 to deny … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting | Tagged Federal Circuit, Lilly, Patent Law, Supreme Court, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Warren Woessner

Now some of them are not yet carved in judicial stone, being at various stages of appeal, but the sum of KSR, Bilski (well, I guess it was more pro-patent than the strict M or T test it replaced with … Continue reading →

Posted in About SLW | Tagged Ariad, Ariad v. Lilly, Bilski, biotechnology, biotechnology law, biotechnology news, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, IP law tools, KSR, Kubin, Lilly, Myriad, Patent Law, patents, Pharmaceutical law, Prometheus v. Mayo, stem cells, Supreme Court, Warren Woessner | 1 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 abbott labs, biotechnology law, centocor v. abbott, intellectual property, ip, Lilly, Patent Law, patents, Warren Woessner, WDR | Leave a comment

A Look Back at the Roots of the Thorny WDR Problem

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Warren Woessner

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 →