In Part I, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III will discuss some of the implications of these. When an applicant seeks to add new claims pursuant to a continuation or divisional application, U.S. Patent Law explicitly requires that the original specification provide adequate support for the new claims by the original specification satisfying the Section 112(a) written description and enablement requirements for the new claims. 35 U.S.C. § 120. The same is also true for continuation-in-part (CIP) applications claiming overlapping subject matter but not for claims comprising “new matter” because the new matter claimed must find support in additional disclosure, i.e., in material added to the CIP application itself.
- CAFC Denies Amgen Petition to Reconsider Enablement Test for Biotech Patents
- Federal Circuit Says Amgen’s Repatha® Patent Claims Require ‘Undue Experimentation’ to Practice
- Implications of Filing Subsequent Patent Applications in the United States (Part III)
- AAM v. Neapco Misreads Federal Circuit Precedent to Create a New Section 101 Enablement-like Legal Requirement – Part II
- New Enablement-Like Requirements for 101 Eligibility: AAM v. Neapco Takes the Case Law Out of Context, and Too Far – Part I
- Looming Leahy Bill Would End Fintiv Practice at PTAB
- Patent Filings Roundup: Trio of Actions Accuse IP Investments of Coordinated Campaign with Intellectual Ventures Backend; Judge Albright Cancels One of 141 WSOU-Asserted Patents; New Magnetar Entity Surfaces
- International: WIPO Reports Increasing Prevalence of Alternative Dispute Resolution for Business-to-Business Copyright Disputes
- New Tillis-Leahy Bills to Boost Innovation: The Good, the Bad and the Nonsense
- Where Have All of the Ex Parte Appeals Gone?