Idenix v. Gilead: The enablement and written description limits of a genus claim

Keith A Zullow, Ci-Wen Chang, S. Anderson
{"title":"Idenix v. Gilead: The enablement and written description limits of a genus claim","authors":"Keith A Zullow, Ci-Wen Chang, S. Anderson","doi":"10.1177/17411343211013572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Sci. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity of a patent claiming methods for treating Hepatitis C virus for, inter alia, lack of enablement. The Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning that the Federal Circuit decision stands, and genus claims covering thousands of compounds that were supported by an insufficient number of examples have failed the enablement test not once, but twice. See Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This case report presents the context surrounding the Federal Circuit’s Idenix decision and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.","PeriodicalId":15914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector","volume":"71 1","pages":"77 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17411343211013572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Sci. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity of a patent claiming methods for treating Hepatitis C virus for, inter alia, lack of enablement. The Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning that the Federal Circuit decision stands, and genus claims covering thousands of compounds that were supported by an insufficient number of examples have failed the enablement test not once, but twice. See Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This case report presents the context surrounding the Federal Circuit’s Idenix decision and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.
Idenix诉Gilead:属权利要求的使能关系和书面描述限制
在Idenix Pharms。LLC诉Gilead Sci。第941 F.3d 1149(联邦巡回法院,2019年),联邦巡回法院维持了一项关于要求治疗丙型肝炎病毒方法的专利无效的判决,除其他外,原因是缺乏使能关系。最高法院驳回了Idenix申请调件令的请求,这意味着联邦巡回法院的判决仍然有效,而且由于案例数量不足,涉及数千种化合物的属类索赔已经两次未能通过使能关系测试。参见惠氏公司诉雅培公司案。, 720 F.3d 1380(联邦法院2013)。本案例报告介绍了联邦巡回法院对identiix案的判决和最高法院决定不审理此案的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信