On March 22, 2010, the Federal Court issued its en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Company [2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5966], reaffirming that 35 U.S.C. § 112 , ¶ 1 contains a written description requirement separate from the enablement requirement. An earlier panel...
It would be so nice if something
made sense for a change - Alice (in Wonderland)
Earlier this week, the BPAI affirmed the rejection of
certain means-plus-function claims of patent 5,283,862 in Ex
Parte Lund (BPAI 2010-005851). Claim 1 recites the following
A portable computer unit...
By Bill Warren and Pete
Pappas On February 23, 2011, in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., No. 2010-1144 [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law ], a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...
NTP Decision Explains Propriety of 112 Analysis in Patent Reexamination
MPEP §§ 2258 and 2658 explain that, during a reexamination
proceeding, the USPTO will not analyze originally issued claim language
with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 , 1st paragraph. (It will, however,