Posts Tagged ‘written description’
In Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a jury verdict from a District Court that found Microsoft had infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,906,700 (“the ’700 patent”), owned by Anascape. The patent for a hand-operated controller used for video games was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,222,525 (“the ’525 patent”) filed in 2000, and the infringed patent relied on the 1996 filing date of the parent ’525 patent to remain valid in light of intervening prior art sold by Sony in 1998. The CAFC held that the written description of the ’525 patent did not contemplate the broader scope claimed in the ’700 patent and therefore the claims in the ’700 patent were invalid. Continue Reading
In Ariad Pharmaceutical v. Eli Lilly, 2008-1248, the en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a 9-2 decision reaffirmed the existence of an independent written description requirement, separate from enablement, in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 (first paragraph).
Ariad Pharmaceuticals and its research partners (collectively, “Ariad”) brought suit against Eli Lilly (“Lilly”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,410,516 (“the ’516 patent”), covering methods to regulate the activity of protein called NF-kB that regulates gene activity. After a jury’s finding of infringement at trial, the case was appealed to a panel of the CAFC which found the claims at issue invalid for lack of written description in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Ariad petitioned for a rehearing by the CAFC en banc, which was granted to address the lingering controversy regarding the existence of an independent written description requirement in § 112, ¶1. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
