Patent Drafting after Johnston

In <i>Johnson &amp; Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service Co.</i>, 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) the Federal Circuit turned at least one aspect of patent drafting practice on its ear. Before <i>Johnson</i>, generally accepted patent drafting techniques encouraged the disclosure of alternative subject matter in the specification, particularly for claimed elements of the invention, in order to possibly broaden the scope of the claims of the resultant patent. Post Johnson, such practices may clearly backfire as the court held that subject matter disclosed in a patent's specification, but not claimed, is dedicated to the public. Although Johnson may well have a major impact on claim drafting techniques, this case will likely have a greater impact on techniques used for drafting the patent specification.

14 minute read October 02, 2003 at 10:58 PM
By
Norman E. Brunell
Patent Drafting after Johnston

In Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service Co., 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) the Federal Circuit turned at least one aspect of patent drafting practice on its ear.

This 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
Subscribe Now

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.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Innovation Engineering: How Firms Can Think Bigger and Ask Better Questions

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Legal AI’s Biggest Mistake: Treating All Workflows the Same

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026