The Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 (2023), found that antibody claims defined by their binding and blocking function lacked enablement…. The Supreme Court’s decision relied highly on the unpredictability of the art—scientists cannot always predict how substitutions of even single amino acids will affect the binding and/or blocking function of an antibody. The disclosed methods of identifying species within the scope of the claim were little more than “trial and error.”… The consensus seems to be that Amgen generally forecloses broad genus claims in the biotechnology field. The remaining questions are: Are patent applicants limited to claiming species (e., sequence listings)? What steps may a patent applicant take to obtain broader coverage?
Recent Posts
- UPC Issues First Permanent SEP Injunction: The Ramifications of Philips v. Belkin | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Thaler Tells SCOTUS Refusing Copyright to AI-Generated Works Endangers Photo Copyrights, Too
- Amici Urge SCOTUS to Address Uncertainty Around ‘After-Arising Technology’ Question
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, October 10: SCOTUS Invites SG’s Views on RiseandShine’s Trademark Issues; MPA Urges OpenAI to Address Sora 2 Infringement; and UPC to Add Third Panel to Court of Appeal
- IP Experts Remind UKIPO: Global Device Markets Thrive Under Arm’s-Length SEP Licensing