"In consecutive weeks, the Federal Circuit has reversed two jury verdicts totaling over $80 million in pharmaceutical patent disputes, holding in both cases that the specifications failed (as a matter of law) to satisfy §112(a)'s disclosure requirements. Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd., Nos. 2023-2424 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2025); Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2024-1078 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)."
"In my view, these cases represent a significant doctrinal development. I see these as revealing three interconnected trends: The Federal Circuit's increasing willingness to treat patent specifications as legal texts subject to judicial interpretation of the text rather than factual determinations of its meaning; The practical (re)convergence of written description and enablement into a unified adequacy inquiry; and The court's growing confidence in overturning jury verdicts on §112(a) grounds as a matter of law."
Two Federal Circuit decisions reversed jury verdicts totaling over $80 million, holding that patent specifications failed (as a matter of law) to meet §112(a)'s disclosure requirements. The decisions involved Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo and Duke University v. Sandoz, decided in late 2025. The rulings reflect three connected doctrinal trends: the court increasingly treats specifications as legal texts for judicial interpretation rather than as factual questions; written description and enablement are practically reconverging into a unified adequacy inquiry; and the court shows greater willingness to overturn jury §112(a) verdicts as a matter of law.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]