Recent US case law attempts to further clarify the written description, novelty and nonobviousness requirements as they apply to antibodies
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
35 USC § 112.
Johns Hopkins University v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Johns Hopkins University v. CellPro, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 303, 323 (D. Del. 1996)).
Id. at 1360.
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Id. at 1349 (quoting Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Id. at 1350.
Evans Medical Ltd. v. American Cyanamid Company, 215 F.3d 1347, **1, 1999 WL 594310 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
MorphoSys AG v. Cambridge Antibody Technology Limited, 158 F.Supp.2d 84, 90–91 (D.D.C. 2001)).
For example, see MorphoSys at 89.
Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Id. at 1329 (Newman, J., dissenting).
Id. at 1330.
Id.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, D., Collison, A. & Kowalski, T. The patentability of antibodies in the United States. Nat Biotechnol 23, 1079–1080 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0905-1079
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0905-1079
