UR loses big patent decision re COX-2 enzyme
In his opinion
[PDF], Larimer wrote: “An inventor or patentee is entitled to a patent to protect his work but only if he produces or has possession of something truly new and novel.”“The invention he claims must be sufficiently concrete so that it can be described for the world to appreciate the specific nature of the work that sets it apart from what was before. The inventor must be able to describe the item to be patented with such clarity that the reader is assured that the inventor actually has possession and knowledge of the unique composition that makes it worthy of patent protection. The patent at issue here does not do that.
“What the reader learns from this patent is a wish or plan or first step for obtaining a desired result. What he appreciates is that the patentee had a goal for achieving a certain end result. The reader can certainly appreciate the goal but establishing goals does not a patent make. The reader also learns that the patentee had not proceeded to do what was necessary to accomplish the desired end. In my view, such an invention is not really one at all.”
