{"id":6245,"date":"2013-11-01T19:08:33","date_gmt":"2013-11-02T01:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=6245"},"modified":"2013-11-05T11:48:25","modified_gmt":"2013-11-05T17:48:25","slug":"boilerplates-impact-on-meeting-the-written-description-requirement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=6245","title":{"rendered":"Boilerplate’s Impact on Meeting the Written Description Requirement"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the recent oral argument of Laube v. Rea<\/span>, a panel of the Federal Circuit was trying to determine whether a patent specification had the degree of specificity required to satisfy the written description requirement for a claim that was not disclosed as a single embodiment in the specification. \u00a0The claim at issue required a “spring clip” which was illustrated in one embodiment and a “side plate” which was illustrated in a different embodiment. \u00a0The panel wanted to know what degree of specificity short of an in haec verba <\/em>description would satisfy the written description standard. [Listen<\/a>]<\/p>\n

The patent owner noted that the specification included standard boilerplate language that indicated pieces could be mixed and matched. \u00a0I found it curious that the panel seemed willing to discount that boilerplate language due to the fact that such language appears in most patents: [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n

Having identified an interesting issue with respect to written description and having noted that the Federal Circuit’s decisions don’t necessarily provide a coherent and useful test to resolve the issue at hand, the panel promptly issued a Rule 36 judgment: [Opinion<\/a>].<\/p>\n

You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Oral Argument<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the recent oral argument of Laube v. Rea, a panel of the Federal Circuit was trying to determine whether a patent specification had the degree of specificity required to satisfy the written description requirement for a claim that was not disclosed as a single embodiment in the specification. \u00a0The claim at issue required a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6245"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6245"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6256,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6245\/revisions\/6256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}