'516 patent hypothesizes three classes of molecules potentially capable of reducing NF-eB activity: specific inhibitors, dominantly interfering molecules, and decoy molecules. Lilly contends that this disclosure amounts to little more than a research plan, and does not satisfy the patentee’s quid pro quo as described in Rochester. Ariad responds that Lilly’s arguments fail as a matter of law because Ariad did not actually claim the molecules. According to Ariad, because there is no term in the asserted claims that corresponds to the molecules, it is entitled to claim the methods without describing the molecules. Ariad’s legal assertion, however, is flawed. In Rochester, as discussed above, we held very similar method claims invalid for lack of written description. 358 F.3d at 918-19 (<HOLDING>); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1170-71 (holding
holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that defending party may establish a right to summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff after an adequate period of discovery has not been able to produce and will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the claimants elements holding the patent invalid because rochester did not present any evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to identify any compound based on the specifications vague functional description holding that first aid does not include cpr or any other skilled treatment that requires training holding that conclusory allegation of patent invalidity is insufficient and noting that there are at least seven reasons why a patent might be invalid