Tag Archives: Ariad v. Lilly

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

Update, Partner and Innovate — AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Conferences and Classes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!

Now some of them are not yet carved in judicial stone, being at various stages of appeal, but the sum of KSR,  Bilski (well, I guess it was more pro-patent than the strict M or T test it replaced with … Continue reading

Posted in About SLW | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Director Kappos Comments on Ariad v. Lilly

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 “working examples”). While … Continue reading

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