E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« PBS NewsHour Examines Oral Argument in AMP v. Myriad -- Patent Docs Author Kevin Noonan Appears on Program | Main | What We May Learn from the Myriad Oral Argument »

April 17, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017d42e5f216970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013):

Comments

"one of skill in the art could readily identify an antibody that binds to CD20 with similar affinity and specificity as does RITUXAN® . . . the skilled artisan could readily produce anti-CD20 antibodies using similar techniques, and screen such antibodies for those having an affinity and functional activity similar to RITUXAN®."

Isn't this precisely how the accused product was identified? The applicants were directly countering the Examiner's argument regarding enablement "no matter the specificity or affinity for the specific epitope on the circulating tumor cells." There was no need to "challeng[e] the examiner's understanding of the crucial terms." The examiner raised the issue of epitopes, and the applicants' argument suggests that the identity of the epitope is irrelevant.

If anything is disclaimed at all, it's antibodies lacking "similar affinity and specificity." The majority must think that "similar apecificity" implies "selective for the same epitope". Judge Plager (correctly, in my opinion) reads it as "selective for the same antigen".

It's always disturbing to see a patent shot down, on account of an argument that you yourself would have made with confidence. The only lesson I can take home here is that, when arguing for enablement, you have to explicitly state that you're not disclaiming anything.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31