USPTO Withdraws Newly Characterized Antigen Test For Written Description Of Antibodies

15 March 2018 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Alexander M. Lodge Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

The USPTO issued a two page memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps noting that some of the USPTO’s written description guidance pertaining to antibody claims is “outdated.” The memo specifically notes withdrawal of the “newly characterized antigen test” for written description of antibodies, and advises that additional written description examination guidance is forthcoming.

The Memo On Written Description Guidance

The memorandum was issued by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Robert W. Bahr, and discusses three aspects of USPTO written description guidance.

Amgen and the Newly Characterized Antigen Test

First, the memorandum addresses the recent Federal Circuit decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which criticized the “newly characterized antigen test.” The test had been embodied in jury instructions stating that “the disclosure of a newly characterized antigen by its structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties” may satisfy written description of a claimed antibody. The Federal Circuit found the instructions to be inconsistent with its decision in Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and “the statutory ‘quid pro quo’ of the patent system where one describes an invention, and if the law’s other requirements are met, one obtains a patent.” The Federal Circuit explained in Amgen that when an antibody is claimed, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires adequate written description of the antibody itself.

The memorandum advises that the “newly characterized antigen” test should not be used in determining whether there is adequate written description for a claim drawn to an antibody.

Outdated Written Description Guidance 

The memorandum also notes that portions of the USPTO’s 2008 Written Description Training Materials are outdated. In particular, the memorandum states that several examples require further analysis for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, the USPTO will prepare new guidance “to reflect changes in the law since 2008.”

Useful Written Description Guidance 

The memorandum closes by highlighting existing guidance that remains useful:

  • MPEP 2161.01 and 2163 except for the newly characterized antigen test in MPEP 2163
  • The 2015 training module entitled “Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 USC 112(a): Overview & Part I – Written Description”
  • The 2015 Written Description Workshop materials
  • The 2015-16 training slide set entitled “Antibody Decisions and Their Compliance with the Written Description Requirement,” except for slide 17, bullet 2, which references the 2008 USPTO Written Description Training Materials

These materials are available on the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page of the USPTO website.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI