1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Single Species Does Not Provide Written Description Support For Genus

Single Species Does Not Provide Written Description Support For Genus

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.11.08

In In re Kenneth Alonso (No. 2008-1079; October 30, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a final decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("the Board") holding that appellant's method claim, which is directed to treating a neurofibrosarcoma in a patient by administering a monoclonal antibody targeted to the patient's tumor, is enabled but invalid for lack of written description.

The Board reversed the Examiner's rejection of appellant's method claim for lack of enablement but sustained the rejection based on lack of adequate written description. The Board determined that the single antibody described in appellant's specification is insufficiently representative to provide adequate written descriptive support for the genus of antibodies required to practice the claimed method. The Court agrees, stating that in addition to the "representative number of species" test applied by the Board, adequate written description may also be found where the disclosure specifies relevant identifying characteristics such as complete or partial structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Although appellant argues that there is a well known correlation between the structure and function of the antibodies generated by his disclosed method, the Federal Circuit states that appellant did not raise the structure-function correlation argument during proceedings before the Board and therefore refuses to consider appellant's "newly minted" argument on appeal.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....