Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Anchor | green | “the purpose of the written description requirement is to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did not.” | 6 |
| 2 | Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Incorporated | green | “a patent is presumed to be valid, and this presumption can be overcome only by facts supported by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” | 4 |
| 3 | Cooper Cameron Corporation v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant | green | “a broad claim is invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly indicates that the invention is of a much narrower scope.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.