March 24, 2010
A recent en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. confirmed that Section 112 of the Patent Act contains a separate written description requirement beyond the requirement that a patent’s claims be enabled in the specification. The majority provided considerable detail to clarify what several precedents have called the “possession of invention” requirement, and in doing so, made clear that many discoveries of basic science research would not qualify. Besides the parties’ briefs, 24 amicus briefs were filed, most in favor of Lilly’s position and most supporting the view that the quid pro quo of the patent system requires more description from the patentee than simply enabling use. Finnegan partner Charles Lipsey represented Lilly.
Commentary
April 11, 2024
Media Mention
Women in Business Law Americas Awards 2024: Three Finnegan Attorneys Shortlisted
April 7, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan and BMW Group Successfully Demolish Non-Practicing Entity NorthStar’s Efforts
April 3, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.