- videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
- calendar_month December 9, 2026 @ 1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
- signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
- card_travel Patent
- schedule 90 minutes
Antibody Patenting: Meeting Written Description and Obviousness Requirements, U.S. and European Perspectives
Welcome to BARBRI, the trusted global leader in legal education. Continue to access the same expert-led Strafford CLE and CPE webinars you know and value. Plus, explore professional skills courses and more.
About the Course
Introduction
This CLE course will guide patent counsel on the patentability requirements relevant to examination before the USPTO and EPO when claiming antibodies, recent case law that could impact those claims, and how best to protect antibody inventions in light of the recent developments.
Description
Patent applicants frequently employ functional language in claims to provide broad protection for antibody inventions. Under prevailing U.S. law, however, to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements, an application must disclose the claimed invention in such detail that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the inventors possessed the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing and be able to make and use that full scope without undue experimentation. What those concepts entail and how to satisfy them for antibody-based technologies is the subject of current debate. After the Supreme Court's decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, however, it may be more difficult to obtain some antibody claims, particularly if it will no longer suffice to characterize the claimed antibody by its various functions. The Federal Circuit's Teva v. Lilly decision (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2026) upheld Teva's patent for treating headaches with antibodies, distinguishing Amgen, and noting that the written description for the claims characterized the method of treating headaches rather than the antibodies themselves.
Claiming antibodies in Europe can also be challenging, with the EPO taking a strict view on what makes a new antibody inventive. In 2021, the EPO updated the influential Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, definitively setting out important aspects of its approach to examining claims directed to antibodies. These guidelines have been further revised since, and there have been several recent decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal reflecting the dynamic developments in this field of technology and the necessary evolution of strategies to obtain adequate patent protection.
Biotech companies, universities, and others are scrambling to determine how to protect their antibody patents on both sides of the Atlantic.
Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the patentability requirements when prosecuting before the USPTO and EPO, recent case law that could impact those claims, and how to protect antibody inventions amid recent developments. Our panel will discuss best practices on what and how much data to include in a patent application to support claims of differing scope, the extent to which post-filing data can be relied on to support the claims, and how examiners are being instructed to examine antibody inventions.
Presented By
Mr. Jacobstein focuses on strategic client counseling, including due diligence, patent prosecution, and post-grant proceedings, with an emphasis on biotechnology and the life sciences. His experience includes prosecuting and appealing applications within the USPTO, as well as post-grant proceedings and larger portfolio management, licensing, and opinion work. He has conducted numerous evaluations for diligence, clearance, and freedom-to-operate assessments, and has extensive experience providing patentability, validity, enforceability, and infringement opinions.
Ms. Murphy focuses on developing patent filing and prosecution strategies tailored to clients’ worldwide business goals. She works with a wide range of clients, including small biotech startup companies, research foundations, and large publicly traded biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Ms. Murphy prepares new patent applications, prosecutes U.S. and foreign applications, and represents appellants in ex parte appeals before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She has also led clients through numerous reissue applications, inter partes and ex parte reexamination applications, and supplemental examination proceedings. Ms. Murphy’s extensive client counseling practice includes providing patentability, freedom-to-operate, infringement, and validity opinions. In addition, she represents petitioners and patent owners in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings before the PTAB. She has substantial experience in a wide variety of life sciences technologies, including antibodies and antibody drug conjugates; antiretrovirals and anticancer agents; biologics; blood clotting factors; cell signaling and signal transduction; diagnostic markers and detection assays; drug formulations; gene delivery systems, including AAV; gene editing technologies, including CRISPR; immunooncology; lipid nanoparticles; microbiome analysis and probiotics; nucleic acid modifications; peptide synthesis and protein purification; single-cell and single-molecule analysis; small molecule drugs; and vaccines.
Dr. Randall is a chartered UK patent attorney, a European patent attorney, and a Unified Patent Court (UPC) representative. With a background in biomedical sciences, she works with a diverse portfolio of clients, including global pharmaceuticals and startup biotechnology companies. Dr. Randall is the recipient of the “IP Rising Star” Award 2023 from Women in Business Law EMEA. She has acquired extensive experience in a broad range of life sciences subject matter. Dr. Randall's areas of interest include personal medicine, immunology, autoimmune diseases, oncology, antibody technologies, antisense therapeutics, blood products, vaccines, gene manipulation, and stem cell culture methods. She has extensive experience with oppositions and appeals, representing both patentee and opponent at Oral Proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). Dr. Randall has managed large, complex portfolios protecting high-value pharmaceuticals. She has experience prosecuting supplementary protection certificates. Dr. Randall has also been involved in litigation proceedings before the UK High Court.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Live Online
On Demand
Date + Time
- event
Wednesday, December 9, 2026
- schedule
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
I. Written description and enablement requirements
II. Novelty and non-obviousness requirements
III. Case law developments
IV. How to best protect antibodies
V. What data and how much data is needed
VI. How broadly should claims be drafted
VII. Guidance examiners receive regarding antibody patentability
The panel will review these and other relevant issues:
- How broadly can the applicant claim? How much support does a filing need to have?
- What are the differences between U.S. requirements and EPO requirements?
- What is a sufficient description of a genus? Can functional language be included?
- When can post-filing data be used?
Unlimited access to premium CLE courses:
- Annual access
- Available live and on-demand
- Best for attorneys and legal professionals
Unlimited access to premium CPE courses.:
- Annual access
- Available live and on-demand
- Best for CPAs and tax professionals
Unlimited access to premium CLE, CPE, Professional Skills and Practice-Ready courses.:
- Annual access
- Available live and on-demand
- Best for legal, accounting, and tax professionals
Unlimited access to Professional Skills and Practice-Ready courses:
- Annual access
- Available on-demand
- Best for new attorneys
Related Courses
Antibody Patenting: Meeting Written Description and Obviousness Requirements, U.S. and European Perspectives
Wednesday, December 9, 2026
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
Patent Inventorship: Best Practices for Determination and Correction
Available On-Demand