In recent years, cases such as Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ('Enzo') and University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle and Co., Inc.
Skating the Thin Ice of the Written Description Requirement
In recent years, cases such as <i>Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.</i>, 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ('<i>Enzo</i>') and <i>University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle and Co., Inc.</i>, 375 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ('<i>Rochester</i>') have fueled an ongoing debate over whether the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112 includes a written description requirement, separate and distinct from enablement and best mode. According to Judge Randall Ray Rader, <i>Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.</i>, 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ('<i>Eli Lilly</i>') brought the written description requirement squarely to light. <i>Rochester</i>, 375 F.3d at 1307 (Circuit Judge Rader dissenting). This 'new' requirement creates 'enormous confusion,' not only for the courts, but also for patent drafters. <i>Id.</i> Because the requirement is in flux, patent practitioners should avoid overlooking the requirement or taking it too lightly.
By
Jack L. ChenThis premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
