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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« A Few Things that USPTO Could Do to Simplify Patent Prosecution | Main | IPO & CIPA Webinar on Life After Brexit »

June 15, 2022


"The District Court considered the issue to be whether the genus of UDP-glucosyltransferases was defined (and described) structurally or functionally and, deciding it was the latter, found that the claims did not provide adequate written description support."

I wonder if the patentee could have avoided this outcome by arguing---under Williamson v. Citrix---that the recitation "UDP-glycosyltransferase" should be given a 112(f) construction because it recites a function without reciting structure sufficient to accomplish that function. If, so then the claim term would have been properly construed to read on the four disclosed UGTs (UGT76G1, UGT91D2, UGT91D2e, & UGT91D11) and equivalents. Presumably the defendant is using one of those four, so such a construction should still have been enough to establish infringement.

I suppose the Patentee’s fear would be that such a stratagem would provide a roadmap for designing around, so any victory would be phyrric and thus ultimately not worth pursuing.

Thanks for the comment

To be sure, that is a possibility. Of course, such a construction only opens the door to a design-around if it turns out that there is a set of known enzymes that: (1) are not among the disclosed species; (2) are not function-way-result "equivalents" of the disclosed four; and (3) nevertheless function as well or better than the disclosed four. That is a fact question whose answer I do not know.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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