As a firm responsible for managing global portfolios for pharmaceutical companies, we closely follow and seek to stay abreast of developments regarding patentability in various jurisdictions. We recently reviewed the Unified...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more
In 2023, a lawsuit that had wound its way through the judicial system for nearly 10 years finally had its day in the U.S. Supreme Court – and made waves in the biotechnology, chemical and pharmaceutical communities. Our...more
The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more
On January 9, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for its patent examiners when evaluating compliance with the enablement requirement in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et...more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued "Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v....more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Guidelines, applicable to any technology, for ascertaining compliance with the enablement requirement in view of the U.S. Supreme Court...more
In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (Amgen) sent shock waves through the patent world, particularly in the chemical and biotech segments, due to its invalidation of Amgen patents based on a...more
On January 10th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a Notice in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 1563) regarding proposed Guidance on how the Office will apply the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)...more
In Baxalta, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding from the District of Delaware (Judge Timothy B. Dyk) that claims 1-4, 19 and 20 of Baxalta’s patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another set of antibody genus claims, finding the case “materially indistinguishable” from those in the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States case, Amgen v....more
With only two precedential IP decisions coming down from the Federal Circuit in the second half of September, pickings were a little slim for blogging. That said, the opinion in Baxalta v. Genentech (2022-1461) — drafted by...more
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant CAFC decision making it more...more
Patent offices may reject a patent application with claims reciting using a composition to treat a disease, based on the requirement that the claimed treatment is not fully supported by the application. In the U.S., such...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court held claims of two patents owned by Amgen, Inc. to be invalid for failing to enable persons skilled in the art to practice the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. §112. Amgen, Inc., et al....more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down broad patent claims covering a “genus” of antibodies, reaffirming in a 9-0 decision that a patent must “enable” the full scope of its claims (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi). Amgen, Inc.,...more
Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen v. Sanofi puts a spotlight on enablement of functionally defined claims. Future developments may shed light on a number of remaining questions for patent applicants. Here are five...more
On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit’s finding that Amgen’s patent claims to cholesterol-lowering antibodies were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Court...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021), that the claims of two of Amgen's patents were invalid for lack enablement. The...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant decision making it more...more
I’m a bit behind and therefore am not part of the slew of commentary that flowed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 (2023), addressing Amgen’s claims to “antibodies that (1) bind...more