IP Insights

Patent practitioners are intimately familiar with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that the “written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, [shall be presented] in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, […]

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a summary judgment ruling that a patentee’s claims were indefinite based on a definition found in another patent that was incorporated by reference.   In Finjan LLC v. Eset, LLC, the claim term at issue was the term “downloadable.”  Finjan’s earliest priority application (the ‘639 application) included a common definition […]

In Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma., 10 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021), a FC panel reversed the DC’s decision that Juno’s claimed chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) in U.S. Pat. No. 7,446,190 including a “binding element that specifically interacts with a selected target” (e.g., scFv that binds CD19) did not satisfy the written description (WD) […]

In the ongoing battle for who originally invented the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, Toolgen’s prosecution history could potentially be its undoing for failing to constitute a reduction to practice.  During a recent Oral Hearing in Regents of the University of California v. Toolgen Inc., interference number 106,127, before the PTAB, counsel for the Junior Party […]