Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 AUGUST 2013

Claim Not Enabled Where There Is Need For Excessive Experimentation

Addressing the issue of whether disclosure of a single species and methods for identifying other species enabled method of treatment claims covering a genus of compounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity for non-enablement, finding that there was no genuine dispute that practicing the full scope of the claims, measured at the time of filing, would require excessive experimentation.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.

Addressing the issue of whether disclosure of a single species and methods for identifying other species enabled method of treatment claims covering a genus of compounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity for non-enablement, finding that there was no genuine dispute that practicing the full scope of the claims, measured at the time of filing, would require excessive experimentation.  Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., Case Nos. 12-1223, -1224 (Fed. Cir., June 26, 2013) (Moore, J.). 

The patents-in-suit claim methods for treating or preventing restenosis (the re-narrowing of an artery, e.g., after balloon angioplasty) by administering an effective amount of rapamycin.  The district court construed rapamycin to include the genus of compounds containing a macrocyclic triene ring structure produced by Streptomyces hygroscopicus and having immunosuppressive

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from