<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Biotechnology Patent Law Blog &#124; Patents4Life by Warren Woessner &#187; Written Description Requirements (WDR)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/category/written-description-requirements-wdr/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.patents4life.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>BSC v. J &amp; J – Written Description Requirement Spreads its Wings</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/07/bsc-v-jj-%e2%80%93-written-description-requirement-spreads-its-wings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/07/bsc-v-jj-%e2%80%93-written-description-requirement-spreads-its-wings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[j&j]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 7th, in a Fed. Cir. panel decision written by Judge Moore, the panel affirmed the invalidation of four J&#38;J patents (a copy of these patents is available at the end of this post) for failure to meet the written description requirement of s.112(1). The patents claimed drug eluting stents, used to keep angioplastied [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/07/bsc-v-jj-%e2%80%93-written-description-requirement-spreads-its-wings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Centocor v. Abbott: Fed. Cir. Takes New Written Description Requirement Out For A Spin.</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/centocor-v-abbott-fed-cir-takes-new-written-description-requirement-out-for-a-spin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/centocor-v-abbott-fed-cir-takes-new-written-description-requirement-out-for-a-spin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[centocor v. abbott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humira]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 of this post.) Humira is a fully-humanized antibody against TNF-alpha. While Centocor obtained U.S. Pat. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/centocor-v-abbott-fed-cir-takes-new-written-description-requirement-out-for-a-spin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RCT v. Microsoft &#8211; Fed. Cir. &#8220;Accepts&#8221; Bilski Invitation</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/rct-v-microsoft-fed-cir-accepts-bilski-invitation-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/rct-v-microsoft-fed-cir-accepts-bilski-invitation-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RTC v Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=705</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 8, 2010, the Fed. Cir. (Rader writing) reversed the district court&#8217;s holding that claims to a process for rendering a half-tone image of a digital image were patent ineligible as an attempt to claim an abstract idea. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2010-1037 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2010). (A copy is at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/rct-v-microsoft-fed-cir-accepts-bilski-invitation-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Director Kappos Comments on Ariad v. Lilly</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/director-kappos-comments-on-ariad-v-lilly/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/director-kappos-comments-on-ariad-v-lilly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 21:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[USPTO David Kappos recently posted a comment on the Fed. Cir. decision in Ariad v. Lilly in which he noted that the Fed. Cir. held that broad functional claims (presumably mechanism-of-action claims) must be supported by sufficient species (read &#8220;working examples&#8221;). While Director Kappos clearly approves of this holding, he does no more to provide guidance to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/director-kappos-comments-on-ariad-v-lilly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Centocor v. Abbott Labs. – “Antibody Exception” To Written Description Requirement Under Fire</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/centocor-v-abbott-labs-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cantibody-exception%e2%80%9d-to-written-description-requirement-under-fire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/centocor-v-abbott-labs-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cantibody-exception%e2%80%9d-to-written-description-requirement-under-fire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbott labs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[centocor v. abbott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 human constant region, where said Ab competitively inhibit binding of the mouse A2 antibody to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/centocor-v-abbott-labs-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cantibody-exception%e2%80%9d-to-written-description-requirement-under-fire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ariad v. Lilly Comes Down (On Us) – Judge Lourie Rules!</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-comes-down-on-us-%e2%80%93-judge-lourie-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-comes-down-on-us-%e2%80%93-judge-lourie-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a majority opinion authored by Judge Lourie for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc (Appeal No. 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir. March 22, 2010)) (a PDF of which is attached to the end of this post), the court held that there is indeed a written description requirement (WDR) in section 112 that is separate from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-comes-down-on-us-%e2%80%93-judge-lourie-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ARIAD v. LILLY – A Modest Proposal – Should Screening be Enough?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-%e2%80%93-a-modest-proposal-%e2%80%93-should-screening-be-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-%e2%80%93-a-modest-proposal-%e2%80%93-should-screening-be-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the Fed. Cir. prepares to issue an en banc opinion on the existence and role of the written description requirement in section 112, it seems like a time for reflection. After taking the position that enablement should suffice for many years, it seems that at least the first part of Ariad’s brief requesting rehearing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/ariad-v-lilly-%e2%80%93-a-modest-proposal-%e2%80%93-should-screening-be-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, Judge Michel, There have been some WDR Appeals!</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/yes-judge-michel-there-have-been-some-wdr-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/yes-judge-michel-there-have-been-some-wdr-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During oral argument before the Fed. Cir. in Ariad v. Lilly, as reported by Patently-O, the government attorney was pressed for specific evidence that a separate WDR &#8220;is necessary for USPTO to perform its examination function&#8221;, e.g., that it serves a practical function. Chief Judge Michel was quoted thusly: &#8220;I can&#8217;t remember ever seeing a patent office [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/yes-judge-michel-there-have-been-some-wdr-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Look Back at the Roots of the Thorny WDR Problem</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/a-look-back-at-the-roots-of-the-thorny-wdr-problem/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/a-look-back-at-the-roots-of-the-thorny-wdr-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENZO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/a-look-back-at-the-roots-of-the-thorny-wdr-problem/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 re-visit an article I published in the April 2003 issue of JPTOS. (A copy can [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/a-look-back-at-the-roots-of-the-thorny-wdr-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TALKING WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT BLUES &#8211; ARIAD WOBBLES</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/talking-written-description-requirement-blues-ariad-wobbles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/talking-written-description-requirement-blues-ariad-wobbles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Written Description Requirements (WDR)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eli Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/talking-written-description-requirement-blues-ariad-wobbles/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On October 5, 2009, Ariad filed a 60 page brief (not counting attached appendices) with the Federal Circuit in support of its appeal in Ariad v. Lilly. (Attached below.) As you will recall from my post of August 24th, the Fed. Cir. granted en banc rehearing of a panel decision invalidating the claims-in-suit for failure [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/talking-written-description-requirement-blues-ariad-wobbles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

