Patent Law Practice Center

Bilski v. Kappos: A Recap Before Decision Day

As the entire patent community waits with bated breath for the Bilski decision, it seems like the perfect time to recap the course of events that have brought us here.  Yesterday, IPWatchdog had a guest blogger, Robert M. Suarez, who did just that in his article, “Mr. Bilski Goes to Washington: An Abridged Guide.”  It is an excellent summary of the Bilski case.  

Before he offers his guide to the case, Suarez writes, “For all of the opinions, articles, and conjecture, all one need do is study the law and look at the precedents to know that anticipating how the Supreme Court will rule in a case is akin to trying to gaze into a crystal ball. So, what will be the future of business methods as patent-eligible subject matter? Will the machine-or-transformation test stand? What will be the fate of the Bilski patent? An educated guess is the best that one can hope for in this situation.” 

Well said Suarez!! (more…)

Written Description Requirement: Ariad v. Eli Lilly

I recently had the opportunity to listen in on PLI’s one hour briefing titled Ariad v. Eli Lilly and the Separate Written Description Requirement. This briefing was conducted by Vera M. Elson, a partner in the international law firm McDermott Will & Emery and Burt Magen, a partner in the law firm Vierra Magen Marcus & DeNiro LLP.  Ms. Elson focuses her practice on intellectual property trial and counseling for her firm’s technology clients.  Mr. Magen focuses his practice on intellectual property counseling and patent prosecution for his firm’s technology clients.

Elson began by explaining that pre-Ariad § 112, ¶1 focused on two underlying purposes behind a separate written description.  The first was Possession:  “The purpose of the written description requirement is broader than to merely explain how to make and use; the applicant must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  In other words, what you claimed you actually invented.  The second was Meaningful Disclosure: “A patent specification must convey the detailed identity of an invention, thereby serving a teaching function as a quid pro quo in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc. 358 F. 3d 916, 921 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  That is to say, you actually invented what you say you invented and you taught it to us.  But, everything came to a head with the Ariad case. (more…)