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.
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