Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Centocor v. Abbott Labs: Must You Only Preach What You Practice?

The Federal Circuit's decision on Feb. 23, 2011 in <i>Centocor Ortho Biotech., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.</i>, vacated a $1.67 billion verdict based on invalidity for insufficient written description. The case provides an example of when technology can be so complicated or unpredictable that the specification does not adequately explain how to practice the claimed invention.

20 minute read March 29, 2011 at 02:16 PM
By
Irah Donner, Matthew Siegal And Clayton McCraw
Centocor v. Abbott Labs: Must You Only Preach What You Practice?

The Federal Circuit's decision on Feb. 23, 2011 in Centocor Ortho Biotech., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 635291 (C.A. Fed. (Tex.) 2011), vacated a $1.67 billion verdict based on invalidity for insufficient written description.

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

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

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.

October 01, 2026