Tag Archives: Centocor

Federal Circuit Holds That Even Functional Claims Require Structural Fence Posts

In AbbVie Deutschland Gmbh v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that found AbbVie’s patents directed to anti-IL-12 antibodies invalid for lack of adequate written description. As between the parties, this decision leaves Centocor free to market its Stelara® product for the treatment of psoriasis. More generally, this decision emphasizes the … Continue reading this entry

Join Me In a Telebriefing Seminar on Centocor

On Thursday, March 31, at 3:00 PM Eastern Time (12:00 PM Pacific Time), I will be speaking during a Law Seminars International TeleBriefing titled “Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories,” discussing the impact of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision. The panel consists of: Donald L. Zuhn, Ph.D, Esq., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, … Continue reading this entry

A Tale of Two Antibodies (Centocor Part II)

As I wrote last week, the Federal Circuit held in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, that the human antibody claims that Centocor had asserted against Abbott’s Humira® product are invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112. The holding is getting lots of attention because it will negate a … Continue reading this entry

The Written Description Requirement for Antibodies (Centocor Part I)

Yesterday, in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, the Federal Circuit held that the human antibody claims that Centocor had asserted against Abbott’s Humira® product (claims 2, 3, 14 and 15 of U.S. 7,070,775) are invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112. (This decision will negate a $1.67 billion damages … Continue reading this entry