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

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

« Amici Support Reversal of PTAB Decision in CRISPR Interference | Main | American Axle's Claims Found Eligible on Remand »

July 27, 2023

Comments

This does not seem correct on its face (regardless of case history), especially when the claim itself contains a direct reference to its utility.

I understand your confusion, skeptical, because utility is implied and arguably is a requirement under the "make and use" language of Section 112(a). I think the answer is that the Federal Circuit believes that the criteria for clinical/therapeutic utility should be applied by FDA, to the extent that FDA could produce a label precluding administration to Group 2 PH patient for example, and that patent law and USPTO should not be deciding validity/infringement on that basis.

Thanks for the comment

My mention of "(regardless of case history)" has more to do with the fact that any patent utility must be possessed at time of filing.

Patent utility that merely happens to be dictated by another portion of the Federal government remains the standard to be possessed at time of filing.

The Federal Circuit seems to be acting in an ultra vires manner by negating that determination.

The key words for me are directly in the claim: "therapeutically effective."

Would be patentees are fully capable of choosing claim language that does not reflect the desired utility THAT IS SET by the FDA.

They have not done so here (and OFTEN do not do so) - this is not an accident.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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