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
- U.S. Government’s Intervention in Patent Case Signals Good News for Patent Owners Seeking Injunctions
- Gaming Patent Litigation on Both Sides of the ‘v’ | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Recentive Rehearing Petition Challenges CAFC’s Broad Section 101 Exclusion of Machine Learning Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process