Pierce to Speak at Suffolk Law Event on November 4th

November 4, 2009

Scott Pierce is speaking on the Ariad v. Eli Lilly case at the Intellectual Property Brown Bag Lunch Series on November 4th. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will rehear Ariad Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009) en banc. In Ariad, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent, directed to modifying activity of a transcription factor, NF-kB, for failure to meet the "written description requirement" of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The issues on rehearing will be whether the written description requirement is separate from the "enablement requirement" of the same paragraph and, if so, its scope and purpose.

Scott will argue that courts, despite assertions that the written description and enablement requirements are separate, have applied the written description requirement as a function of enablement. Compliance has been measured by the ability of one skilled in the art to comprehend from the specification, as filed, the scope of the invention claimed. The possible implications of this interpretation of the written description requirement on the facts of Ariad will be discussed.

About

November 4, 2009

Scott Pierce is speaking on the Ariad v. Eli Lilly case at the Intellectual Property Brown Bag Lunch Series on November 4th. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will rehear Ariad Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009) en banc. In Ariad, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent, directed to modifying activity of a transcription factor, NF-kB, for failure to meet the "written description requirement" of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The issues on rehearing will be whether the written description requirement is separate from the "enablement requirement" of the same paragraph and, if so, its scope and purpose.

Scott will argue that courts, despite assertions that the written description and enablement requirements are separate, have applied the written description requirement as a function of enablement. Compliance has been measured by the ability of one skilled in the art to comprehend from the specification, as filed, the scope of the invention claimed. The possible implications of this interpretation of the written description requirement on the facts of Ariad will be discussed.

Back to the Top