Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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. 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.
Specifically, Centocor held that the written description of U.S. Patent No. 7,070,775 (“the '775 patent”) describing a mouse antibody and chimeric antibody having a mouse variable region was inadequate to show possession of an invention relating to human antibodies that could neutralize human TNF-a for use as a drug. The court also found that generating human antibodies with the properties claimed would not have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the original invention. Rather, the court held that the claimed antibody was merely a “wish list” of desired properties.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.