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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Supreme Court Bilski Argument | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

November 10, 2009

Comments

I note from the Federal Circuit's docket sheet that Lilly's brief on rehearing was filed November 9. Will you be posting it? Attorneys I work with are following the case.

Susan:

We plan to report on Lilly's brief early next week. We also plan to report on each of the amicus briefs submitted in this case before the en banc hearing on December 7th.

Don

Instead of different sections viz specification and description to ensure enablement of the claimed invention if the dexcription as such contains sufficient information which ensures enablement should br considered enough

If the description like the example enables the working of claimed invention then it should be OK

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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