The written-description requirement in UC v. Lilly

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 87-88

  Levine, Howard W ^a  

^a Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett and Dunner LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT DNA;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COURT; DNA SEQUENCE; LAW SUIT; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY;

ANIMALS; CALIFORNIA; CLONING, MOLECULAR; DNA, COMPLEMENTARY; DNA, RECOMBINANT; HUMANS; PATENTS; PROINSULIN; RATS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031974811     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0198-87     Document Type: Short Survey

References (11)

1. 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).
2. Vas-Cath Corp. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).
3. 119 F.3d at 1567.
4. Id. at 1563.
5. In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558-59 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
6. 927 F.2d 1200, 1206-09 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
7. 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
8. Id. at 1170-71.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 US 141, 151 (1989).