University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.

Case Number: CLB0052

Date: 02.13.2004

Citation: 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1996 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

In common parlance, as well as in the case law, the three requirements of § 112, ¶ 1 are the “written description requirement,” the “enablement requirement,” and the “best mode requirement.” For the written description requirement, a description of what a claimed material does, rather than what it is, usually does not suffice. In this case, the Rochester ‘850 patent discloses nothing more than a hoped-for function for an as-yet-to-be discovered compound and a research plan for trying to find it.

Download PDF Return to Case Law Briefs Main Page