MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480162208

Gilding the Lilly: The § 112 Written Description Requirement Separate from Enablement

2011· article· en· W1480162208 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParagraphLawPossession (linguistics)Federal courtPolitical scienceLaw and economicsBusinessSociologyPhilosophySupreme court
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On March 22, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., held that the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement separate from the enablement requirement. In so doing, the court affirmed recent circuit precedent holding that a patentee must demonstrate possession of its invention at time of filing, in addition to enabling one of skill in the art to practice the invention. This Comment argues that the court’s stated bases inadequately support its holding and appear to skew the result towards Lilly, undermining the perceived justness of the decision.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0290.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207