Contact the author: Andrew Berks AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 2013-1338 (Fed. Cir. 7/1/2014) This is a significant decision that extends the Federal Circuit’s holdings on written description from Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and has important lessons for patent applicants seeking to …
Continue reading “Abbvie v. Janssen: Another nail in the coffin of functional claiming”
In Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Assoc’d Regional Univ. Pathologists, Inc., No. 2010-1401 (Fed. Cir. 4/29/2011), U.S. Patent Nos. 5,674,681 (the ’681 patent) and 6,355,425 (the ’425 patent) describe genetic tests for Type I hereditary hemochromatosis, an iron disorder characterized by excessive iron absorption by the body. The defective gene in hemochromatosis is the High Fe (“HFE”) gene. The …
In an en banc decision, the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit affirmed, in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., that there are separate written description and enablement requirements in 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, and that the requirement applies to original claims as well as amended claims. (598 F.3d 1336 (No. 2008-1248) …
Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., No. 2010-1144 (Fed. Cir. 2/23/2011) (opinion by Prost). Centocor sued Abbott for patent infringement alleging that Abbott’s Humira® antibody infringes US Patent No. 7,070,775. The jury rejected Abbott’s defense that the asserted claims were invalid, and found Abbott liable for willful infringement and awarded Centocor $1.67 B. Abbott moved for …
Continue reading “Centocor human antibody claims invalidated for lack of written description”
