3

Perhaps it's best to back up and consider the "social contract" a patent is intended to fulfill. You get protection for your patented invention until the patent expires. You, however, are expected to give something in return for that protection. Specifically, you're required to document your invention, revealing all its secrets, so that after the patent ...


2

Do disparaged embodiments lack claim support? Probably. I will preface this by saying that, much to my frustration, I could not find a case on all-fours with what you are proposing. It could well a novel situation1. But there are two well-established principles that are related: claims are interpreted to exclude disparaged subject matter, and claims ...


2

In the US case, I would also like to add that reverse doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may apply as implicit claim scope limitation. Reverse DOE essentially says literally infringing structure may not infringe if it does not satisfy all of the traditional function-way-result requirements. E.g., see the wikipedia article. This would apply to the previous ...


2

Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified? Yes. The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope. The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at MPEP § 2164.02: For a claimed genus, ...


1

One of the primary purposes of the written description is to provide support for the claims. It is the claims that define your invention and serve notice to others what is protected. It is difficult to draft the written description without first thinking about the claims which in turn depend on prior art and other patentability considerations. The written ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible