News & Analysis as of

Written Descriptions Patent Litigation

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Federal Circuit Calls for a Replay Allowing Sonos Another Opportunity at Google

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 8, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Mondis Technology Ltd., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-2117, -2116 (Fed. Cir. (D.N.J.) Aug. 8, 2025). Opinion by Hughes, joined by Taranto and Clevenger....more

Knobbe Martens

An Examiner’s Allowance Does Not Create an “Especially Weighty” Presumption of Written-Description Support

Knobbe Martens on

MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., HITACHI MAXELL, LTD., NKA MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD., MAXELL, LTD.  v.  LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. - Before Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States District Court...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.

Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-2117, -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) Our Case of the Week focuses on the written description requirement, and, in particular, how that requirement is considered...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Zydus, Inc. I

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Myrbetriq is a drug used to treat overactive bladder. It utilizes a hydrogel-based sustained-release oral tablet formulation to control the rate at which the active ingredient,...more

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit Applies Prosecution History Estoppel Based on Claim Cancellation

Morgan Lewis on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that cancellation of a claim during prosecution may give rise to prosecution history estoppel, precluding the patentee from recapturing the surrendered subject...more

A&O Shearman

Court of Appeal upholds invalidity of AstraZeneca's compound patent and clarifies the standard of plausibility

A&O Shearman on

On July 16 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal and upheld the first instance decision, finding that AstraZeneca’s compound patent for dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor used to treat diabetes, was invalid...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Zydus, Inc. II

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Astellas sued Lupin and Zydus based on the generics manufacturers’ ANDA filing and their efforts to make and sell generic mirabegron. In the leadup to the 2023 bench trial, the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Is Your Enantiomer Possessed? Patenting of Enantiomers – Does Written Description Require More Than Actual Possession?

It is well established that an enantiomerically pure compound exhibiting advantageous properties not present in its isomer or its corresponding racemic mixture, can be patented even if its corresponding racemic mixtures are...more

Haug Partners LLP

In CRISPR Patent Dispute, the Federal Circuit Clarifies the Conception and Written Description Standards

Haug Partners LLP on

On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc.1 concerning the ongoing priority dispute relating to competing inventor groups for the CRISPR-Cas9 eukaryotic...more

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Priority Denied, Patent Derailed: When One Filing Cancels Out the Other

On April 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision In re: Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd that underscores a critical and often overlooked risk in design patent prosecution: relying on a utility patent application for...more

ArentFox Schiff

Designers Beware: Prior Utility Patent Lacking Written Support Can Anticipate Later-Filed Design Patents

ArentFox Schiff on

In its recent In re Floyd opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject a design applicant’s priority claim to an earlier utility filing for...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Practical Guide to Claiming Small Molecules with Functional Language

Patent claims reciting compounds where at least one group of a compound genus is defined by its function are common. For example, familiar claim terms such as “chelating moiety,” “linker,” and “binding moiety” describe a...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 16, 2025

Alston & Bird on

The Regents of the University of California, et al. v. The Broad Institute, Inc., et al., Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) May 12, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Hughes and Cunningham....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025) - Update

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. on Monday. The opinion reviewed the...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Method of Treatment Claim’s Limiting Preamble Must Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

In re Entresto

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Entresto® (valsartan/sacubitril) - Case Name: In re Entresto, 125 F.4th 1090 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna presiding; Opinion by Lourie, C.J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Andrews, J.)  Drug...more

DLA Piper

CDR Scanning Offers Hope for Genus Claims for Antibodies

DLA Piper on

In the landmark Amgen v. Sanofi case (previously covered here), the Supreme Court affirmed that patent claims drawn to a genus of monoclonal antibodies, which were claimed in terms of their function and the epitope to which...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Jepson Claim Format Does Not Avoid Written Description Scrutiny

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Current written description jurisprudence can make it difficult to obtain broad antibody patents, leading practitioners to explore alternative claiming strategies in an effort to bypass the limited scope afforded under the...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Riggs Decision: 35 USC 102(e) Prior Art Requires Written Description Support...

Goodwin on

On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more

Cooley LLP

End of the Road for Jepson Format Claims in the Life Sciences?

Cooley LLP on

In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more

206 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 9

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide