LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Written Description Requirement of Patentability

April 2022Intellectual PropertyPharmaceutical

Abstract

One of the requirements for an invention to be patentable is written description, which requires that the invention be described in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, …. ” 35 U. S. C. § 112(a). To support a claim, the specification of the patent must describe the claimed subject matter in a way and from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, such that he would understand the metes and bounds of the invention. Without such description, it may be hard for one to understand the exact coordinates of the invention. Such a disclosure would also enable the development of the treasure of knowledge, allowing the future innovators to contribute over what has already been disclosed. The written description requirement also entails that the inventor actually invented the invention and was in possession of it, at the time of filing of the application. A mere wish or a plan for future is not enough. This paper focuses on the niche of the written description required under § 112(a), which is one of the basic principles upon which the “quid pro quo” of the patent grant system is based. This paper examines the nuances of the requirement that guide the compliance. The paper also examines recent case law on this aspect of patentability and evaluates how the Courts have addressed the legal requirement in recent times.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Author

Anagha Tendulkar

In-house Patent Counsel, Cipla, India

Related Papers

March-In Rights at a Crossroad: What Biopharma Needs To Know Under Trump Administration
Few pieces of legislation have shaped the modern innovation landscape as profoundly as the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. By allowing universities, small businesses, and non-profit organizations to retain ownership...Read more
Portrait image of Joanna Brougher
Joanna Brougher
Owner & Principal, BioPharma Law Group PLLC, USA
Portrait image of Bhavya Bhardwaj
Bhavya Bhardwaj
Student, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Patent Strategies for Attenuated Pathogen Vaccines
Malaria is a major health concern for people traveling to and living in malaria-endemic areas, causing 249 million clinical cases and 608,000 deaths in 2022, numbers essentially unchanged over the...Read more
Portrait image of David Dolberg
David Dolberg
Senior Director of Intellectual Property, Sanaria Inc., USA
Ways to Avoid Having your Patents Cellected*
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit caused frustrations when it decided to affirm the U.S. Patent Office’s findings that claims in four patents were unpatentable because they are...Read more
Portrait image of Tom Irving
Tom Irving
Partner, Marbury Law Group, USA
Portrait image of Xiaoguang Michelle Gao
Xiaoguang Michelle Gao
Associate VP - Assistant General Patent Counsel, Eli Lilly and Company, USA
Portrait image of Michelle E. O'Brien
Michelle E. O'Brien
Partner, Marbury Law Group, USA
Section 112 Requirements for Life Sciences Patents
35 U.S.C. §112(a) of the US Patent Act is one of the integral parts of the quid pro quo patent system that balances the benefit of disclosure of the invention...Read more
Portrait image of Anagha Tendulkar
Anagha Tendulkar
In-house Patent Counsel, Cipla, India