You can tell that I (and pretty much every other lawyer) learned JMOL in a specific and nerdy context.
Pretty much every other collection of letters are pronounced as either an acronym -- NASA, SONAR, LOL (this one's a matter of preference) -- or an initialism like LMAO, CIA, PB&J.
JMOL, stands proudly atop the divide, too unwieldy to pronounce in either regime.
None of this is legally relevant (yet!), but it leads neatly into yesterday's decision in Natera, Inc. v. CareDx, Inc., C.A. No. 20-38-CFC-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2025). The defendant there made the bold decision of moving for J-MALL that both of the asserted patents were invalid for lack of written description, which the plaintiff naturally opposed.
In support of the motion, defendant pointed to the testimony of its expert to the effect that the specifications failed to disclose all of the various elements of the claimed method being performed together, "as an integrated whole." The plaintiff in response, pointed to the testimony of their expert, but notably did not cite any portion of the specification that provided the requisite description:
At most, Dr. Quackenbush identified textual support for certain elements of claim 21 and asked the jury to take it on his word that an artisan of ordinary skill "should· be able to put these things together." That strategy fails as a matter of law. "[P]ointing to an 'amalgam of disclosures' from which an artisan could have created the claimed invention does not satisfy th[ e] [ written description] requirement."
Id. at 11 (internal citations omitted).
The citeable bit (i.e., the bit you practitioners might care about), was how Judge Connolly dealt with plaintiff's argument that the jury could reasonably find the patents valid even if the plaintiff presented no evidence on written description:
Natera argues that "[t]he jury could have reasonably concluded that CareDx failed to meet its burden even if Natera had not presented any evidence on written description." . . But . . . to defeat a defendant's motion for judgment of invalidity as a matter of law, the patentee need not submit evidence only if the evidence of invalidity adduced by the defendant was "totally inadequate" to support an invalidity finding . . . If, however, the challenger introduces evidence that would justify a conclusion of invalidity, the patentee has "the burden of going forward with evidence" to rebut that conclusion.
Id. at 13-14 (internal citations omitted).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
