Gilding the Lilly: The § 112 Written Description Requirement Separate from Enablement

16 Pages Posted: 11 Apr 2011 Last revised: 3 Jan 2015

Date Written: April 1, 2011

Abstract

On March 22, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., held that the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement separate from the enablement requirement. In so doing, the court affirmed recent circuit precedent holding that a patentee must demonstrate possession of its invention at time of filing, in addition to enabling one of skill in the art to practice the invention. This Comment argues that the court’s stated bases inadequately support its holding and appear to skew the result towards Lilly, undermining the perceived justness of the decision.

Keywords: Patent, Written Description, Enablement, Possession, Intellectual Property

Suggested Citation

Greene, Michael A., Gilding the Lilly: The § 112 Written Description Requirement Separate from Enablement (April 1, 2011). Boston College Law Review Electronic Supplement, Vol. 52, p. 213, 2011, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1806369

Michael A. Greene (Contact Author)

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. ( email )

600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, MA 02210
Boston, MA 02210
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
81
Abstract Views
719
Rank
547,434
PlumX Metrics