Posts Tagged: written description requirement


Even If New Matter, Entire Application Relevant to Assessing Compliance with Written Description Requirement

Several weeks ago, in a non-precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re: David Tropp, which vacated and remanded …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
10 months ago 1

Federal Circuit Affirms $140M Reasonable Royalty for Sprint in Nonprecedential Decision

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s damages award of approximately $140 million for Sprint after Time Warner was found to infringe claims of five patents covering …
By Steve Brachmann
11 months ago 1

How to Write a Patent Application

Writing a patent application is not as easy as many think. Indeed, the concept of usefully describing the invention, which on its face seems easy enough to …
By Gene Quinn
1 year ago 1

Federal Circuit Vacates, Remands After PTAB Fails to Consider Arguments in Reply Brief

On Friday, June 1st, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re: Durance striking down a decision by the Patent Trial …
By Steve Brachmann
1 year ago 6

Patents Invalidated for Lack of Written Description

Disclosure of one way to attach or position a roof assembly (a species) did not provide an adequate written description of other ways to attach or position …

Patenting Antibodies: Written Description Considerations in Antibody Patents

The Amgen v. Sanofi decision put most functional antibody claims into question, including epitope and competitive binding claims, as well as antibody claims based on a newly …
By Li Feng & Stacy Lewis
1 year ago 2

Written Description Support for Claimed Range Requires More than Broad Disclosure

Appellant General Hospital Corp. (“GHC”) appealed the Board’s dismissal of an interference because the claims of its involved patent application lacked sufficient written description. The disclosure …

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 …