Recently, a unanimous Supreme Court issued its ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, holding that Amgen’s challenged patents ran afoul of Section 112’s enablement requirement.
In an opinion issued on March 6, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s holding of unpatentability because the applications from which the patent claimed priority from lacked sufficient written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Regents of University of MN v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 2021-2168 (March 6, 2021). Because the patent could not…
On Friday, February 10, 2023, the latest round of amicus briefs in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi poured in. The case, set to be argued on March 27 before the U.S. Supreme Court, asks the Court to wrestle with the enablement requirement of Section 112 of the Patent Act. Specifically, the Court has been asked to…
Section 112 written description requirements present a challenge for patentees claiming negative limitations, as the extent to which a specification needs to disclose the absence of a feature is not entirely clear, especially following the recent Federal Circuit case Novartis v. HEC Pharm Case No. 1:18-cv-01043-KAJ (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022). In its review of negative…
Judge Bryson, sitting in the District of Delaware invalidated four patents owned by Lipocine, Inc., finding that the patents did not meet the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Lipocine Inc. v. Clarus Therapeutics, Inc., No. 19-622 2021 (D. Del. 2021). Lipocine’s patents were directed to methods for treating men deficient…
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of New Jersey’s final judgment that two patents directed to methods of administering NSAIDs were adequately described under § 112. Nuvo Pharm. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Both of the asserted patents are…