Category Archives: Enablement

Amgen v. Sanofi – How Wands Factors make Biotech Claims “Magically” Disappear

Posted on February 13, 2021 by Warren Woessner

While this recent Fed. Cir. decision – Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2021) seems predictable, given the fate of antibody claims that recite the target and the function of antibody binding thereto, there are … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

AAM v. Neapco – Part III – The Dissent Faces a “Perfect Storm” of Conflated Doctrines

Posted on August 11, 2020 by Warren Woessner

Since most of my last post discussing Judge Moore’s dissent focused on her criticism of the majority’s conclusion that the claimed invention—placing a tuned liner into a hollow “propshaft” to attenuate two modes of vibration—was directed to Hooke’s law and … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Wyeth v. Abbott Labs. – Picking Plaintiff’s Poison

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Warren Woessner

In July of 2011, I wrote a post for this blog on BSC v. J&J, a Fed. Cir. decision in which four J&J patents claiming stents eluting rapamycin, a drug that inhibits restenosis after balloon angioplasty, were held invalid for … Continue reading →

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

Edwards Lifesciences v. Corevalve – Pig Valve Implants Enabling

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Warren Woessner

In Edwards Lifesciences AB v. Corevalve, Inc. (now a part of Medtronic), Appeal No. 2011-1215-1257 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012), Corevalve challenged the validity of US Pat. No. 5,411,552 directed to a “transcather heart valve” on the basis that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment