Tag Archives: Warren Woessner

ARIAD v. LILLY – A Modest Proposal – Should Screening be Enough?

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 … Continue reading

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

Yes, Judge Michel, There have been some WDR Appeals!

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 “is necessary for USPTO to perform its examination function”, e.g., that it serves a practical … Continue reading

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

Sustained release fluvastatin formulations – The UK Court of Appeal opinion in Activis UK Limited v Novartis AG [2010] EWCA Civ 82

Post from Paul Cole Sometimes a decision as to obviousness hinges on a single short point. In Graham v John Deere, the tipping point testimony was during cross-examination of the witness for the patentee, when he said that the allegedly … Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

END OF AN ERA – “SWISS-FORM” CLAIMS ARE OUT

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued a decision on February 19th (G02/08), that Swiss-form claims will no longer be permitted as a way to claim a “second medical use” of a bioactive agent – “The use of … Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment