May 13, 2010
In March, the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued their en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company. 598 F.3d 1336. The central issue was whether patents must contain a written description separate from an enablement requirement, and if so, the scope and purpose of that requirement. We continue to receive requests for the twenty-five amicus briefs.
To view the briefs in this case:
On Westlaw, search the database CTAF-BRIEF for TI(“ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS” & “ELI LILLY”).
On WestlawNext, pull up the citation, access the FILINGS tab, and select briefs from the menu on the left side of the screen.
Background: The court engaged in some discussion of the grammar and structure of 25 U.S.C. § 112 and a thorough review of precedent to reach the decision that yes, indeed, the statute contains a separate written description requirement. “Specifically, the description must clearly allow person of ordinary skill in the art of to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, 598 F.3d at 1351 (internal quotations omitted). The level of detail necessary to satisfy this requirement will vary “depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”