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
- Revised Fair Use Ruling Finds No Transformative Use in Developing AI Search Tool
- Patently Strategic Podcast: Dealing with Rejection
- IPWatchdog Unleashed: Patents and the Future of the USPTO in Trump’s Second Term
- No Infringement Intended – The World Wrestling Federation’s Biggest Fight: A Look at Trademark Law and Global Brand Recognition
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 7: CAFC Rejects Untimely Expert Testimony and Reassigns Case; CJEU Clarifies Online Marketplace Responsibilities Under GDPR; and IPWATCHPUPPIES ARE ON THE WAY!