\(
\def\WIPO{World Intellectual Property Organisation}
\)
Ariad Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly: clarification and change or simply the status quo?
2010
GB 139
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DataCite | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS | |
Title
Ariad Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly: clarification and change or simply the status quo?
Item Type
Journal article
Description
June 2010 (pp. 55-56); [28] cm
ISSN
2044-7175
Alternate Call Number
GB 139
Summary
On 22 March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued its en banc opinion in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Eli Lilly & Co. In a nine to two decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the written description requirement for patents, as set out in 25 U.S.C. S112, first paragraph, is a separate and sitinct requiremnt from that of enablement. The Court also emphasized that written description does not apply solely in the context of priority determinations (ie, whether a patent applicant may rely on its original filing date with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) based on disclousures in patent specification when the applicant later amends or broadens its claims).
Published
London, England: Informa, U.K. 2010.
Language
English
Record Appears in