Category Archives: Written Description Requirements (WDR)

Novozymes Loses “Possession” Of Its Enzyme

I am not sure how I missed this decision, which came down on July 22nd, but it offers a rather scary hi-def picture as to where the written description requirement of s. 112 has been and where it is headed. … Continue reading

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

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

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

Supreme Court Declines To Review “New And Improved” Written Description Requirement

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied Centocor’s (now “Janssen”) petition for cert. and so let stand a ruling that Centocor’s patents on humanized monoclonal antibodies (covering Abbott’s Humira) are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement (WDR) of … Continue reading

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

BSC v. J & J – Written Description Requirement Spreads its Wings

On June 7th, in a Fed. Cir. panel decision written by Judge Moore, the panel affirmed the invalidation of four J&J patents (a copy of these patents is available at the end of this post) for failure to meet the … Continue reading

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