Federal Circuit Finds Adequate Written Description Support Under the Doctrine of Inherent Disclosure

Sep 26, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The ’915 patent is directed to a protein called “TBP-II” and claims a particular N-terminus sequence of the protein. In 1996, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”) instituted an interference proceeding between the ’915 patent and a patent application owned by Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. (“Yeda”). The Board gave the ’915 patent a priority date of 1990—its application filing date—and held that a prior art reference describing TBP-II anticipates the claims. Although the ’915 patent claims priority to two applications filed in 1989, neither of the applications discloses the full N-terminus sequence claimed in the ’915 patent. Instead, they disclose a partial N-terminus sequence, but the only protein known to contain the partial N-terminus sequence is TBP-II.

Abbott sought review of the Board’s decision in the district court. The district court reversed and remanded the decision, finding that the first of the two priority applications inherently discloses the TBP-II protein. On remand, the Board changed its decision and found that the second priority application provides written description support for the ’915 patent. Again, Yeda sought review of the Board’s decision in the district court, and, this time, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision. Yeda appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that TBP-II is adequately disclosed by the second priority application. According to the court, “[u]nder the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.” Because “TBP-II is the only protein with the same partial N-terminus sequence and additional traits” as those described in the application, the court concluded that the application inherently discloses the remaining amino acids in the N-terminus sequence and provides adequate written description of the protein claimed in the ’915 patent.

Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, Nos. 2015-1662 and 2015-1663 (Fed. Cir. September 20, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.