News & Analysis as of

Written Descriptions Prior Art Appeals

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

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

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

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

Lathrop GPM

Significant Federal Circuit Decision Redefines Prior Art Requirements

Lathrop GPM on

Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements For A Prior Art Reference’s Entitlement To The Filing Date Of A Provisional Application To...

A&O Shearman on

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Third Quarter 2024 Federal Circuit Law Update

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Holy Pulmonary Hypertension, Batman: Method of Treatment Not Constrained by Safety and Efficacy

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the asserted method of treatment patent was valid and infringed because safety and efficacy are not patent concerns. The Federal Circuit...more

McDermott Will & Emery

First Rule of the PTAB? Play by the Rules

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

Federal Circuit Imposes Heightened Standard for Written Description Support of Negative Claim Limitations

In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held patent claims invalid for lack of written description where a negative limitation was...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Outlier? Split Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Written Description Requirement

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a patent owner’s request for en banc rehearing of a panel decision that invalidated a patent for lack of written description on the basis that a person of skill in the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Won’t Rescue Parachute Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that claims to a ballistic parachute were obvious over the prior art based on knowledge attributable to artisans and...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2021 #2

AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1729 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) - Our Case of the Week again focuses on numerical values in claims. Last week we addressed a case involving whether there was...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Finds No Alternative Holding in District Court Opinion and Rejects Appeal

On April 20, in Sebela Ireland v. Prinston Pharmaceutical, the Federal Circuit held that Sebela’s appeal challenged only contingent patent invalidity findings and dismissed the appeal for lack of constitutional standing. In...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Snubs Extrinsic Evidence in Reversing Ruling on 12(b)(6) Motion Arguing Invalidity Under § 101

In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more

Knobbe Martens

Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope

Knobbe Martens on

TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. ITC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: Consistent description in the specification of a particular embodiment as the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Equivalent Disclosure Used to Satisfy Written Description Requirement

McDermott Will & Emery on

Invoking a newly minted equivalent disclosure doctrine, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the written description requirement of § 112 was satisfied in the interest of arriving at a...more

Knobbe Martens

TF3 Limited v. TRE Milano, LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

D Three Enterprises, LLC v. SunModo Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2017-1909, -1910 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2018) - The Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity in favor of patent infringement defendants, based on a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In SimpleAir, Inc. v Google LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule...more

Knobbe Martens

Hologic, Inc., v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Disclosure of a species may provide written description support for a claimed genus when the field...more

Jones Day

Incorporation by Reference Users Beware

Jones Day on

In an appeal from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings where Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) challenged two patents owned by Paice LLC (“Paice”), the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Relies on Robust Disclosure to Save Priority Date

Knobbe Martens on

On September 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the summary judgement that Abbott’s U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 (“the ’915 Patent”) was sufficiently supported by the written...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Inherent Disclosure Satisfied Written Description

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Slip Op. 2015-1662 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that a claim to an isolated protein described by its partial amino acid sequence satisfies 35...more

25 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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