Defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity of plaintiffs' alpha-amylases patent for lack of written description was denied. "It is not without hesitation that I am denying defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs do not contradict defendants’ observation that, if plaintiffs’ position is accepted, it means that plaintiffs disclosed 8.589 x 1042 possible inventions in their specification. However, to the extent the specification would require undue experimentation before a person of ordinary skill in the art could discover the claimed invention, that may suggest a lack of enablement rather than a problem with the written description."
Novozymes A/S, et. al. v. Danisco A/S, et. al., 3-10-cv-00251 (WIWD February 4, 2011, Order) (Crabb, J.)
1 comment:
Here is a similar story
Scientific research publications do not, as a rule, disclose the existence of patent rights associated with the subject matter of the publication. Disclosure of patents and patent applications is typically required only when they constitute a competing financial interest that could bias authors in reporting their results and compromise their objectivity.1 However, there are other reasons to require patent disclosure in scientific literature.
Post a Comment