Written Description Requirement for Negative Claim Limitations in Flux as Federal Circuit Panel Reverses Previous Panel Decision

Section 112 written description requirements present a challenge for patentees claiming negative limitations, as the extent to which a specification needs to disclose the absence of a feature is not entirely clear, especially following the recent Federal Circuit case Novartis v. HEC Pharm Case No. 1:18-cv-01043-KAJ (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022). In its review of negative […]

Laundry List of Formulations Fails to Satisfy § 112 for Broad Functional Claims

Judge Bryson, sitting in the District of Delaware invalidated four patents owned by Lipocine, Inc., finding that the patents did not meet the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Lipocine Inc. v. Clarus Therapeutics, Inc., No. 19-622 2021 (D. Del. 2021). Lipocine’s patents were directed to methods for treating men deficient […]

PATENTS ARE AWARDED FOR INVENTIONS, NOT RESEARCH PLANS

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of New Jersey’s final judgment that two patents directed to methods of administering NSAIDs were adequately described under § 112. Nuvo Pharm. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Both of the asserted patents are […]