The Federal Circuit’s decision in Juno v. Kite undermines effective prosecution practice and ultimately patent enforcement. The Juno panel held that to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent needs to demonstrate to a skilled artisan that the inventors possessed and disclosed in their filing the full scope of every genus being claimed. By denying rehearing to the Federal Circuit’s 2021 decision on the scope of the written description requirement, Juno v. Kite demonstrates how once again, the courts never consider anything from a prosecutor’s point of view. Here’s why Juno v. Kite is bad for patent prosecution practice.
Recent Posts
- Amici Back AI Company’s Third Circuit Appeal of Summary Judgment for Thomson Reuters
- The AI Revolution: From Drilling to Algorithms, Inventing an Energy Future / IPWatchdog Unleashed
- CAFC Affirms Obviousness of Vehicle ID Claims, Finds Substitute Claims Ineligible Under Section 101
- U.S. Patent Litigation Trends in 2025: Patterns Behind the Numbers
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 26: Trump Announces 100% Tariff on Patented Pharmaceuticals; Judge Alsup Approves $1.5 Billion Anthropic AI Settlement; and DOJ Weaponization Group Reportedly Investigating Secret Patent Reviews
