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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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 Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Anchor | green | “satisfaction of the written description requirement is a fact-based inquiry, depending on 'the nature of the claimed invention and the knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time an invention is made and a patent application is filed.” | 3 |
| 2 | Alcon, Inc. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. | green | “satisfaction of the written description requirement is a fact-based inquiry, depending on 'the nature of the claimed invention and the knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time an invention is made and a patent application is filed.” | 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.