Novartis v. Accord – No Limits on Negative Limitations?

Posted on January 10, 2022 by Warren Woessner

A split panel of Judges O’Malley, Linn and Moore (dissenting) affirmed a district court ruling that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 9,187,405 met the written description requirement (WDR) of s. 112(a). Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 3, 2022). Claim 1 reads as follows:

Continue reading →

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

Biogen v. Mylan – Therapeutic v. Clinical Efficacy – What is Required by the Written Description Requirement?

Posted on December 28, 2021 by Warren Woessner

In Biogen v. Mylan, Appeal No. 2020-1933 (Fed. Cir., November 30, 2021), a divided panel of Judges O’Malley, Reyna and Hughes affirmed a district court’s ruling that Biogen’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,399,514 is invalid for failing to meet the written description requirement [WDR] of s. 112(a).  Judges Reyna and Hughes were the majority, while Judge O’Malley penned an 11-page dissent.

Continue reading →

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

Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory – Homeless on the Range

Posted on December 2, 2021 by Warren Woessner

In Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (“DRL”), Appeal  nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir., November 24, 2021) a split panel (Lourie [writing] and Dyk, with Linn concurring in part and dissenting in part) affirmed a Board decision that claims 1-5 and 7-14 were invalid. Indivior had issued these claims in U. S. Pt. No. 9,687,454 out of one of a long chain of continuations. However, it had added two ranges to the claims directed to an “oral, self-supporting, mucoadhesive film”. One “new claim” (1) added the element that the film comprised “about 40 wt % to about 60 wt % of a water soluble polymeric matrix.” The other claims in suit added the element that the film comprises about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt % of the water soluble polymeric matrix.

Continue reading →

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

Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu – A Class in Obviousness

Posted on November 17, 2021 by Warren Woessner

In fact, it was Clear-Vu that got “schooled” in the law of obviousness, but this case would be a good teaching—or review—article for anyone on this subject. I admit, it was refreshing to re-read some of the classic quotes from Fed. Cir. panels that set the standards for s. 103 inquiries. I know that patent eligibility and even s. 112(1) are the hot topics of the day. This decision by Judges Reyna, Cleavinger and Stoll (writing)  felt like encountering the ghost of s. 103 past—when the entire IP world seemed like a friendlier place.

Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , | Leave a comment