Sanjeev Mahanta, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanjeev Mahanta, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanjeev Mahanta, Ph.D., J.D. is a member of the Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group of the law firm Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, LLP, Boston, MA.  Sanjeev’s practice focuses on domestic and International patent applications. Sanjeev helps clients obtain patents across a wide technology spectrum including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, materials science, and medical device. 

For more information or to contact Sanjeev, please visit his Firm Profile Page.


Posts by Sanjeev Mahanta, Ph.D., J.D.


Issue Preclusion, PTAB, and the Split Federal Circuit: Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic

Under the status quo, neither the patentee nor the public is able to rely on judicial determination of an issue that might later be taken to the …

USPTO to Clarify Guidance on Written Description of Antibodies

The memorandum points to Amgen for stating that the “newly characterized antigen” test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system …

Reasonable Expectation of Success to the Rescue

In the last several months, lack of a reasonable expectation of success was a major factor in the reversal of two obviousness rulings by the Federal Circuit. …

When Post-Filing Evidence to Determine Written Description Support Is Admissible: Amgen v. Sanofi

May a court rely on post-priority-date evidence offered to show that a patent lacks written description support even though written description is judged based on the state …

Amgen v. Sanofi: A well characterized antigen insufficient for written description of an antibody

In what appears to be a clear departure from the past, in Amgen, the Federal Circuit has rejected the test, basing its rejection on the ground that …

Idenix v. Gilead: District Court Exercises Discretion to Deny Enhanced Damages

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 14-846-LPS (Delaware Dist. Court, Sept 22, 2017) (“Idenix v. Gilead”), is a good example of the exercise of …

Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Pleading Infringement in Lifetime v. Trim-Lok

Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 2017-1096, (Fed. Cir. Sept 7, 2017) is an appeal involving a dispute over the correct pleading standard in the context of allegation of …

Inquiry into Unexpectedness is Essential Even for Determining Obviousness in Inherency

The Federal Circuit reversed. Indeed, it found that the Board committed legal error by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation …

Inherency in Obviousness – What is the Correct Standard?

Although the distinction between inherency in obviousness and anticipation is sometimes blurred, the two concepts are quite different and a claim may be inherently anticipated without being …

Enablement – Did the public receive all it contracted to receive?

A claim drafted too broadly may not be enabled and hence be invalid. Yet, the temptation to claim broadly often leads the patentee to ignore this …