Speaking Engagement

Mastering the Written Description Requirement

Biotech Patenting Conference


London, England

C5 Biotech Patenting Conference

  • What constitutes an adequate written description under U.S. law?
  • Should U.S. courts recognize a written description requirement independent of the enablement requirement? Judge Rader's concurrence in Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003) argues they should not.
  • Written description's original role as "priority policeman" — showing possession of a later-claimed invention as of the application's filing date. e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar (Fed. Cir. 1991).
  • Written description as "super enablement":
    • Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 1997) and its progeny.
    • Harsh application of the written description requirement in biotechnology cases without priority issues — no functional claiming for DNA.
  • The qualified return of functional claiming for DNA:
    • Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc. (Enzo II) (Fed. Cir. 2002).
    • Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003).
  • The Lilly rule expands to non-DNA inventions, but USPTO-sanctioned functional claiming of monoclonal antibodies permitted Noelle v. Lederman (Fed. Cir. 2004).
  • Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle (Fed. Cir. 2004)
    • what does it mean for biotechnology inventions?
    • is functional claiming dead again?
    • is actual reduction to practice required now?
    • are valid biotechnology claims now limited to exemplified embodiments?
    • does the presumption of validity apply to written description anymore?




Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.