Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 21, 1989 — the effective filing date of the '516 patent. The parties disputed the effective filing date of the '516 patent, and in a detailed and well-crafted special verdict form, the jury was asked to choose between the two possible dates: April 21, 1989, and November 13, 1991. The jury chose 1989 and neither party appealed that determination. Presumably because of uncertainty over the priority date, much of Ariad’s evidence was actually directed to the later date. Because written description is determined as of the filing date— April 21, 1989, in this case — evidence of what one of ordinary skill in the art knew in 1990 or 1991 cannot provide substantial evidence to the jury that the asserted claims were supported by adequate written description. See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64 (<HOLDING>). In accordance with Rochester, the '516 patent 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (B) holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities (C) holding that a written description analysis occurs as of the filing date sought (D) holding that the creditors claim on the petition date for purposes of a  547b5 analysis was the unpaid balance of the store loans as of the filing date plus the total amount of the alleged preferential payments (E) holding that where accessible literature sources clearly provided a description of the teachings at issue the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference
Output (English): holding that the creditors claim on the petition date for purposes of a  547b5 analysis was the unpaid balance of the store loans as of the filing date plus the total amount of the alleged preferential payments