As detailed in Part I of this article, the recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) misreads and misinterprets Supreme Court precedent as having long imposed the enablement-like requirements set forth in the AAM ruling. Similarly, the Federal Circuit cases cited by AAM do not reflect some longstanding Section 101 eligibility rule that the claim alone must show, with “specificity,” the “way” or “how to” “achieve” such an invention, beyond a mere “result.”
Enablement
- SCOTUS Takes on Scope of Enablement Inquiry in Amgen v. Sanofi: Implications for Pharma/ Biotech and Beyond
- Amgen Says Solicitor General’s ‘Disagreement With Everyone’ Further Supports SCOTUS Review of Legal Standard for Enablement
- Review Not Warranted: SG Tells SCOTUS to Scrap Amgen’s Case on Enablement Test for Biotech Patents
- CAFC Denies Amgen Petition to Reconsider Enablement Test for Biotech Patents
- Federal Circuit Says Amgen’s Repatha® Patent Claims Require ‘Undue Experimentation’ to Practice
Recent Posts
- SCOTUS Sustains Blow to Patent Prosecution Practice in Denying Juno v. Kite Rehearing
- Opinion: Restoring The Road Less Traveled – American Invention at a Crossroad
- An Alternative to Claim Mirroring in Initial Patent Application Filing
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent
- New Federal Law and FTC Rule Will Imperil Trade Secret Protection