Category Archives: Written Description Requirements (WDR)

PTO Releases Revised Guidance on Compliance with Mayo/Alice Rule

On April 19, the USPTO released a Memorandum from Robert Bahr, The Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, that summarized the support required for a finding if a claim directed to a judicial exception to s. 101 eligibility under Step … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Claim Construction, Forum, Patenting Methods/Processes, Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Amgen v. Sanofi – Invalidation Without Representation?

The End of the “Newly Characterized Antigen” Rule for Antibody Claims In Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal no. 2017-1480 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 5, 2017) the Fed. Cir. panel reversed the district court’s finding that Amgen antibody patents 8,289,165 and 8859741 … Continue reading

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

UCB v. Yeda R&D Co. – No “Safe Harbor” for Unamended Claims

UCB sued Yeda for a DJ of non-infringement of US Patent No. 6,090,923 [Appeal No. 2015-1957 (Fed. Cir. September 8, 2016)].The main claim in question was directed to “A monoclonal antibody which specifically binds a human cytotoxin [having X properties].” … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Issues, Post-Grant Issues, Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Leave a comment

Abbvie V. Janssen Biotech –Written Description Requirement Road Map

The recent decision in Abbvie Deutschland v. Janssen Biotech and Centorcor Biologics, App. No. 2013-1338, -1346 (Fed. Cir. , July 1, 2014) deserves more attention than it has received. (A copy of the decision is available at the end of … Continue reading

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