tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post53611389370051428..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Strict US written description requirement applied to CAR-T-cell therapy (Juno v Kite)Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10102914650806864812022-01-09T12:04:52.726+00:002022-01-09T12:04:52.726+00:00Rose, for me with my engineering cases, the US WT ...Rose, for me with my engineering cases, the US WT requirement shows up mostly in connection with the admissibility of prosecution amendments to the claims. Is there a WD in the application as filed, for example, for the intermediate generalization the Applicant wishes to claim after receipt of the EESR? My personal view is that a gradual tightening of the WD requirement in the USA is inevitable, as the courts come to terms with the inevitabilities of applying First to File law between rival filers, who all filed for much the same subject matter at much the same time.<br /><br />The US statute does have an "added matter" provision but(as I understand it) it is not applicable to prosecution amendments to the claims. WD is all they've got. So it's inevitably going to get more stringent, isn't it?Max Dreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03338443708960801180noreply@blogger.com