Is the viability of the Lilly doctrine on the decline?

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 943-944

  Walker, Barbara Webb ^a   Carty, Sherry M ^b  

^a Burns Doane Swecker and Mathis   (United States)

^b Burns Doane Swecker and Mathis   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COURT; DRUG INDUSTRY; LAW; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DISCLOSURE; DOCUMENTATION; LIABILITY, LEGAL; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0042206599     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0803-943     Document Type: Short Survey

References (10)

1. Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
2. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3. 35 USC §112, ¶1.
4. Mueller, J.M. The evolving application of the written description requirement to biotechnological inventions. Berkeley Tech. L.J. 13, 615-621 (1998).
5. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
6. US Patent No. 4,652,525.
7. See Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 USC §112, ¶1, Written Description Requirement, Fed. Reg. 66, 1099-1111.
8. Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
9. Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 296 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
10. Amgen Inc., v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003).