Patent Law Practice Center

Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution Highlights: Claim Drafting & Preparation of Patent Application

Another great presentation I sat in on today at Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011 was an Introduction to Patent Drafting. The speaker was Willian Frommer of Frommer Lawrence & Haug .  Here are the highlights from the discussion:

 Frommer suggested that whenever possible, the attorney should interview the inventor to obtain a detailed understanding of the invention and that an attorney’s role is to learn of a specific embodiment of the invention, but also to predict possible alternative embodiments and implementations that may be brought to market. He offered two practice tips: 1) Courts will sometimes limit a claim to a preferred embodiment or even invalidate claims that are broader than the disclosed embodiments.  The more embodiments, the better.  Try to anticipate competing products that may affect your client’s market and 2) The inventor is often the best source for alternative embodiments. (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…)