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
- The Truth Leaks Out: Justices Struggle with the Science, Sanofi Welcomes End to Functional Genus Claims in Amgen Oral Arguments
- What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
- Amgen Reply Brief Addresses Mischaracterizations by Sanofi, U.S. Government on Proper Enablement Inquiry for Genus Claims
- Will the Supreme Court Save Biopharma from CAFC Enablement Insanity?
- Amici for Sanofi Add Their Two Cents as Amgen’s Day in High Court Approaches
Recent Posts
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 26: USPTO Proposes Track Three Pilot Program for Micro Entity Patent Applicants; LeBron James Joins Taco Tuesday Trademark Battle; European Commission Releases List of Countries with Concerning IP Rights Protections
- Former Copyright Office GC Tells House IP Subcommittee His Counterpart Got It Wrong on AI Fair Use
- Clause 8: Tom Irving on Litigating the First Hatch-Waxman Case and Mentoring Thousands in the Patent Field
- IP Goes Pop! – Streamlining Copyright Disputes: The Copyright Claims Board