University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a patent can be held invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement, based solely on the language of the patent specification.”
• holding the patent invalid because \Rochester did not present any evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to identify any compound based on [the specification's] vague functional description\
• holding the patent invalid because “Rochester did not present any evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to identify any compound based on [the specification’s] vague functional description”
• noting that “there is often significant overlap” in the written description and enablement requirements set forth in § 112
• explaining that merely stat- ing “automobile” in a claim would not have been sufficient written description at the time of invention of the automo- bile
• explaining that “functional descriptions of genetic material can, in some cases, meet the written description requirement if the functional characteristics are coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).