|
Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation
In response to a request to review the district court's determination that
the Mullan reference anticipates the claims in issue because the patented
mouse is inherent in Mullan reference, the CAFC concluded that the
patentee's arguments are more properly characterized as enablement arguments
rather than inherency arguments. The CAFC clarified that invalidity based on
anticipation requires that the assertedly anticipating disclosure enabled
the subject matter of the reference and thus of the patented invention
without undue experimentation.
For more patent information, see
http://www.patentcribsheet.com/Cases/elanphar.html.
--------------------------------
This posting contains educational information for lawyers directly
impacting patent preparation and prosecution. It does not constitute legal
advice, nor does it create or constitute any attorney-client relationship.
|
| |
| |
|
