In yet another appellate case with spirited dissents, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reveal differences of opinion among members of the court in how precedent and the use of extrinsic evidence should guide current decisions. In the recent case of Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, which dealt with the adequacy of a patent’s written description under 35 USC §112, there were strong dissents in the panel decision and in the court’s denial of requests for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
