Regents of the U. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2021-2168, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023)
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) analyzed whether the written description found in UMN’s priority applications supported the claims in the resulting patent # US 8,815,830. The CAFC said no.
While the ‘830 patent claims covered sofosbuvir, The CAFC affirmed an IPR’s invalidation of U. Minnesota’s claims because they could not properly claim priority to its provisional application. The reasoning was that the provisional with its nebulous multiple dependent claims, that were themselves dependent on further multiple dependent claims, did not adequately describe the subgenus eventually claimed in the non-provisional application.
See Patently-O’s posts for more:
March 7, 2023 — Laundry Lists of Components are Insufficient Written Description for a Particular Combination | Patently-O (patentlyo.com)
March 9, 2023 — Multiple dependent claims, blaze marks, and ipsis verbis support | Patently-O (patentlyo.com)