BarbriSFCourseDetails

Course Details

This CLE webinar will guide patent counsel on means-plus-function (MPF) antibody claims in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Xencor. The panel will discuss the potential outcomes and the best practice options flowing therefrom, including best practices to avoid an adverse decision in future antibody MPF claims.

Faculty

Description

Nearly all technological fields use MPF claiming. MPF claims, often perceived as narrow, can provide more protection for patent applicants than other claims. Following the Xencor decision, MPF claiming lives to see another day. However, the decision gives guidance for steps to avoid the adverse decision.

In Xencor, the Federal Circuit upheld the Appeals Review Panel decision that the preamble of claim 9 is limiting. The court rejected Xencor's argument that only part of the preamble should be limiting, concluding that "treating a patient" and "administering an anti-C5 antibody" were connected and could not be split. Further, because the preamble in claim 9 was limiting, the claim did not have written description support as it was construed in view of the preamble to cover any patient and any disease.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines MPF antibody claims in light of the Federal Circuit's decision. The panel will discuss alternatives to MPF and offer best practices for leveraging MPF claiming. 

Outline

I. MPF antibody claims and the benefits of using them

II. Federal Circuit decision in Xencor

III. Written description in Section 112

IV. Definiteness of MPF antibody claims under Section 112(b)

V. Alternatives to MPF

VI. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will review these and other noteworthy issues:

  • What are the benefits and limitations of using MPF patent claims for antibody patents?
  • What are the potential implications of the Federal Circuit's decision in Xencor?
  • What are the alternatives to MPF?