<?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; Ariad v. Lilly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/tag/ariad-v-lilly/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>Update, Partner and Innovate — AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/04/update-partner-and-innovate-%e2%80%94-autm-eastern-regional-meeting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/04/update-partner-and-innovate-%e2%80%94-autm-eastern-regional-meeting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conferences and Classes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AUTM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I will be on a panel entitled “Kicking the Hornet’s Nest – Patenting Early Stage Technology” at the AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting in Baltimore (May 24th). I will be joined by Esther Kepplinger, Director of Patent Operations at Wilson Sonsini and Dr. Kathryn R. Doyle of the Riverside Law Group. We will cover new developments [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/04/update-partner-and-innovate-%e2%80%94-autm-eastern-regional-meeting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/happy-birthday-patents4life-%e2%80%93-we-are-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/happy-birthday-patents4life-%e2%80%93-we-are-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[About SLW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></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[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stem cells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well almost. The first posts on Patents4Life were dated March 24, 2009. One was on a fairly obscure decision, SRI International (the prior art effect of internet postings), but the other two were on the Fed. Cir.’s summary affirmance of the district court’s finding of invalidity in Classen (applying Bilski as they saw it) and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/happy-birthday-patents4life-%e2%80%93-we-are-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>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>ANOTHER &#8220;HAIL MARY&#8221; CLAIM BITES THE DUST</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/another-hail-mary-claim-bites-the-dust/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/another-hail-mary-claim-bites-the-dust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patenting Methods/Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ariad v. Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my post of April 22, 2009, I spent quite a lot of time discussing why &#8220;mechanism of action&#8221; claims may issue but, like the &#8220;Hail Mary&#8221; pass in football, remain vulnerable to invalidation as inherently anticipated by the prior art, taken with discoveries made long after the filing date of the claims. Much of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/another-hail-mary-claim-bites-the-dust/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>
		<item>
		<title>NATURE/BIOTECHNOLOGY SUMMARIZES ARIAD DECISION</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/06/naturebiotechnology-summarizes-ariad-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/06/naturebiotechnology-summarizes-ariad-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:19:00 +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[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eli Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ken Garber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nature/Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/06/naturebiotechnology-summarizes-ariad-decision/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent article by Ken Garber in Nature/Biotechnology, 27, 494 (June 2009) summarizes the recent Federal Circuit decision invalidating the claims-in-suit in Ariad v. Lilly for failure to meet the WDR. (See my post of April 13, 2009 “Federal Circuit Throws Wrench Into ‘Mechanism of Action Claims’” for a summary of the decision.) Various patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/06/naturebiotechnology-summarizes-ariad-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

