News & Analysis as of

Written Descriptions United States Patent and Trademark Office 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

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

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

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - July 2023 #4

United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-2217, 2023-1021 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent case this week, the Court considered questions...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2023

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week focuses on the written description requirement...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Heightened Written Description Standard for Negative Limitations?

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of negative claim limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, vacated its prior decision (authored by now-retired Judge O’Malley) and reversed the...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Written Description of Therapeutic Efficacy

Fenwick & West LLP on

Inventors are generally counseled to file a patent application as soon as they have a patentable invention to avoid potential forfeiture of important rights in today’s first inventor-to-file system. However,...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2021

Fenwick & West LLP on

Written Description of Therapeutic Efficacy - In two 2019 rulings, the Federal Circuit invoked the “written description requirement” of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to require evidentiary support for therapeutic efficacy. Now that the...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

The Goods on IP - October 2019: Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions: Words Can Matter in a Design Patent

Claim construction for a design patent is mainly focused on the drawings, which show the ornamental design that is protected by the patent. But the Federal Circuit recently identified one situation where the drawings weren’t...more

Knobbe Martens

The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction

Knobbe Martens on

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRA NCE - Before Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v.  Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from a jury trial, the Federal Circuit addressed numerous issues...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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

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

17 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