LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Federal Circuit Reaffirms The Existence Of A Written Description Requirement Separate From The Enablement Requirement

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...

Sutherland Legal Alert: The Written Description Requirement Revisited, Giving Caution to Biotech Patent Owners

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...

Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP: Federal Circuit Delivers Billion-Dollar Lesson on Written Description

By Robert M. Asher , Co-Chair of the Patent Practice Group For patent owners, patiently biding time in the PTO with repeated continuation filings, waiting for a hook on which to catch infringers, is a common practice. Here is a story in which patience pays off, but the BIG one gets away. The...

Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly: Clarifying the Scope of Written Description

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law ] is the Federal Circuit's attempt to address the written description requirement. The decision is of interest...