No. 21-1566

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., et al. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2022-06-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (5)Relisted (6)
Tags: 35-usc-112(a) enablement federal-circuit invention-scope inventor-possession patent patent-law patent-specification statutory-interpretation written-description
Key Terms:
Antitrust Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06 (distributed 6 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a) should be measured by the statutory standard or the Federal Circuit's 'possession' test

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 112(a) of Title 35, United States Code, requires that a patent include a “specification,” which “shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The question presented is: Is the adequacy of the “written description of the invention” to be measured by the statutory standard of “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same,” or is it to be evaluated under the Federal Circuit’s test, which demands that the “written description of the invention” demonstrate the inventor’s “possession” of “the full scope of the claimed invention,” including all “known and unknown” variations of each component?

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Rehearing DENIED.
2022-12-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-11-23
2022-11-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/28/2022.
2022-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/14/2022.
2022-10-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-07
Reply of petitioners Juno Therapeutics, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-24
Brief of respondent Kite Pharma, Inc. in opposition filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amici curiae of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Inc., et al. filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amici curiae of Amgen Inc., et al. filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of REGENXBIO Inc. filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amici curiae of Mark D. Janis and Timothy R. Holbrook filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of City of Hope filed.
2022-06-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2022.
2022-06-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 15, 2022 to August 24, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-06-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 15, 2022)
2022-03-07
Application (21A461) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 13, 2022.
2022-02-25
Application (21A461) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 14, 2022 to June 13, 2022, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Amgen Inc., Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Instil Bio, Inc., Corning Incorporated, Bavarian Nordic A/S, and GlaxoSmithKline plc
Jeffrey Alan LamkenMoloLamken LLP, Amicus
City of Hope
Daralyn Jeannine DurieDurie Tangri LLP, Amicus
Juno Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
Gregory Andrew CastaniasJones Day, Petitioner
Kite Pharma, Inc.
E. Joshua RosenkranzOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Respondent
Mark D. Janis and Timothy R. Holbrook
Timothy R. HolbrookEmory University School of Law, Amicus
REGENXBIO Inc.
Matthew James DowdDowd Scheffel PLLC, Amicus
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Inc., Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Other Academic Research Institutions
Vanessa Y. YenKing & Spalding LLP, Amicus