Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., s. 90-1273
| Citation | 927 F.2d 1200,18 USPQ2d 1016 |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | 90-1275,Nos. 90-1273,s. 90-1273 |
| Parties | , 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016 AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and Genetics Institute, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Edward M. O'Toole, Marshall, O'Toole, Gerstein, Murray & Bicknall, Chicago, Ill., argued, for plaintiff/cross-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael F. Borun, Richard A. Schnurr and Christine A. Dudzik. Also on the brief were Steven M. Odre and Robert D. Weist, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, Cal., of counsel.
Kurt E. Richter, Morgan & Finnegan, New York City, and William F. Lee, Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., argued for defendants-appellants. Of counsel were Eugene Moroz, Michael P. Dougherty and William S. Feiler, Morgan & Finnegan, New York City.
Before MARKEY, LOURIE and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal and cross appeal are from the March 4, 1990, judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 13 USPQ2d 1737, 1989 WL 169006 (1990), and involve issues of patent validity, infringement, and inequitable conduct with respect to two patents: U.S. Patent 4,703,008 ('008), owned by Kirin-Amgen Inc. (Amgen), and U.S. Patent 4,677,195 ('195), owned by Genetics Institute, Inc. (GI).
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Chugai) and Genetics Institute, Inc. (collectively defendants) assert on appeal that the district court erred in holding that: 1) Amgen's '008 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. Secs. 102(g) and 103; 2) the '008 patent is enforceable; 3) the failure of Amgen to deposit the best mode host cells was not a violation of the best mode requirement under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112; and 4) claims 4 and 6 of GI's '195 patent are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112.
On cross appeal, Amgen challenges the district court's holdings that: 1) claims 1 and 3 of the '195 patent are enabled; 2) the '195 patent is enforceable; 3) this is not an exceptional case warranting an award of attorney fees to Amgen; and 4) claims 7, 8, 23-27 and 29 of the '008 patent are not enabled by the specification.
We affirm the district court's holdings in all respects, except that we reverse the court's ruling that claims 1 and 3 of the '195 patent are enabled. We also vacate that part of the district court's judgment relating to infringement of those claims.
Erythropoietin (EPO) is a protein consisting of 165 amino acids which stimulates the production of red blood cells. It is therefore a useful therapeutic agent in the treatment of anemias or blood disorders characterized by low or defective bone marrow production of red blood cells.
The preparation of EPO products generally has been accomplished through the concentration and purification of urine from both healthy individuals and those exhibiting high EPO levels. A new technique for producing EPO is recombinant DNA technology in which EPO is produced from cell cultures into which genetically-engineered vectors containing the EPO gene have been introduced. The production of EPO by recombinant technology involves expressing an EPO gene through the same processes that occur in a natural cell.
On June 30, 1987, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued to Dr. Rodney Hewick U.S. Patent 4,677,195, entitled "Method for the Purification of Erythropoietin and Erythropoietin Compositions" (the '195 patent). The patent claims both homogeneous EPO and compositions thereof and a method for purifying human EPO using reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography. The method claims are not before us. The relevant claims of the '195 patent are:
1. Homogeneous erythropoietin characterized by a molecular weight of about 34,000 daltons on SDS PAGE, movement as a single peak on reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography and a specific activity of at least 160,000 IU per absorbance unit at 280 nanometers.
* * * * * *
3. A pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of anemia comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the homogeneous erythropoietin of claim 1 in a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle.
4. Homogeneous erythropoietin characterized by a molecular weight of about 34,000 daltons on SDS PAGE, movement as a single peak on reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography and a specific activity of at least about 160,000 IU per absorbance unit at 280 nanometers.
* * * * * *
6. A pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of anemia comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the homogeneous erythropoietin of claim 4 in a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle.
Dr. Hewick assigned the patent to GI.
The other patent in this litigation is U.S. Patent 4,703,008, entitled "DNA Sequences Encoding Erythropoietin" (the '008 patent), issued on October 27, 1987, to Dr. Fu-Kuen Lin, an employee of Amgen. The claims of 2. A purified and isolated DNA sequence consisting essentially of a DNA sequence encoding human erythropoietin.
the '008 patent cover purified and isolated DNA sequences encoding erythropoietin and host cells transformed or transfected with a DNA sequence. The relevant claims are as follows:
* * * * * *
4. A procaryotic or eucaryotic host cell transformed or transfected with a DNA sequence according to claim 1, 2 or 3 in a manner allowing the host cell to express erythropoietin.
* * * * * *
6. A procaryotic or eucaryotic host cell stably transformed or transfected with a DNA vector according to claim 5.
7. A purified and isolated DNA sequence consisting essentially of a DNA sequence encoding a polypeptide having an amino acid sequence sufficiently duplicative of that of erythropoietin to allow possession of the biological property of causing bone marrow cells to increase production of reticulocytes and red blood cells, and to increase hemoglobin synthesis or iron uptake.
8. A cDNA sequence according to claim 7.
* * * * * *
23. A procaryotic or eucaryotic host cell transformed or transfected with a DNA sequence according to claim 7, 8, or 11 in a manner allowing the host cell to express said polypeptide.
24. A transformed or transfected host cell according to claim 23 which host cell is capable of glycosylating said polypeptide.
25. A transformed or transfected mammalian host cell according to claim 24.
26. A transformed or transfected COS cell according to claim 25.
27. A transformed or transfected CHO cell according to claim 25.
* * * * * *
29. A procaryotic host cell stably transformed or transfected with a DNA vector according to claim 28.
On October 27, 1987, the same day that the '008 patent was issued, Amgen filed suit against Chugai and GI. It alleged that GI infringed the '008 patent by the production of recombinant EPO (rEPO) and by use of transformed mammalian host cells containing vectors with DNA coding for the production of human EPO, and that Chugai, as a result of a collaborative relationship with GI, had induced and/or contributed to the direct infringement of the '008 patent by GI. Amgen further sought a declaration that GI's '195 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. Secs. 102, 103, and 112, or, in the alternative, that Amgen does not infringe the claims of the '195 patent, and a declaration that GI and Chugai's future activities in the production and sale of rEPO will infringe the '008 patent. 2
GI and Chugai answered and counterclaimed, asserting several affirmative defenses, including invalidity under 35 U.S.C. Secs. 101, 102, 103, and 112; non-infringement; failure to make deposits at a public depository of biological materials allegedly necessary for enabling the best mode of practicing the invention; and unenforceability of the patent because of Amgen's alleged inequitable conduct before the PTO. GI also counterclaimed, alleging that Amgen infringed the '195 patent, asserting unfair competition, and seeking a declaratory judgment that the '008 patent was invalid and not infringed.
GI and Chugai then filed a joint motion for a partial summary judgment that Amgen In response to Amgen's motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court, on February 7, 1989, issued an order finding that "Amgen had shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the validity of its patent; that it would suffer irreparable injury due to the needs of an incipient market and the attendant burdens on a new company; ..." and that, as to the public interest, "recombinant EPO is an extraordinarily valuable medicine that promises marked relief from renal failure." Because of this public interest finding, the court determined that it would not enter an order to delay or prevent production or shipping of EPO, but would require the defendant GI to place with the court all profits from the sale of EPO.
infringed the claims of the '195 patent. Chugai also filed its own motion for summary judgment. On February 24, 1988, the district court granted GI's and Chugai's motion for partial summary judgment and, on January 31, 1989, the court granted Chugai's motion for partial summary judgment only to the extent of ruling that the '008 patent does not contain a process claim, an issue that is not now before us.
In order to expedite trial, the parties consented to trial before a magistrate. The judge entered judgment upon findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth by the magistrate. With respect to Amgen's '008 patent, the court held that claims 2, 4, and 6 are valid, enforceable and have been infringed by GI; that infringement was not willful; that claims 7, 8, 23-27, and 29 are invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 but, if valid, were infringed by GI; that the '008 patent does not contain a process claim; and that Chugai has not infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any claim of the '008 patent....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civil Action No. 93-110-JJF.
...for determining which of these permutations are operative and which are not." Id. at 1564 (citing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212-14 (Fed.Cir.1991)). Similarly, in this case, the Court notes that the specification for the '931 Patent provides no guidance fo......
-
Discovision Associates v. Disc Mfg., Inc.
...to enable one skilled in the art to carry out the invention commensurate with the scope of his claims." Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1991) (internal citation omitted); accord In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 496 ("It is well settled that patent applicants are......
-
Viva Healthcare Packaging USA Inc. v. CTL Packaging USA Inc.
...that are relevant, because the factors "are illustrative, not mandatory." Streck, 665 F.3d at 1288 (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1991) ). The determination of enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. See Green Edge Enter......
-
E2interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.
...1313,1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Mentor H/S Inc., v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 1991).Page 23411.3.2.4 SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS — INDEFINITENESSCommittee Comment The Committee did not include a......
-
Patent Antibody Case Law Continues To Mature
...will likely be determinative in the absence of other explicit intrinsic evidence to the contrary. Written Description Amgen v. Chugai, 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993) served as the foundation for written description law, even though they inv......
-
Patent Antibody Case Law Continues To Mature
...will likely be determinative in the absence of other explicit intrinsic evidence to the contrary. Written Description Amgen v. Chugai, 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993) served as the foundation for written description law, even though they inv......
-
Conception And Reduction To Practice Of A DNA May Be Established Without The Full And Correct Nucleotide Sequence
...of IL-13bc. The Board disagreed with Sanofi's reading of Federal Circuit precedent, including Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Ci......
-
Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
...Note, Best Mode Disclosure—Genetic Engineers Get Their Trade Secret and Their Patent Too?— Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. , 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 169 (interim ed. 1991) , 18 U. DAYTON L. REV. 177, 189 (1992). 2013] EXCLUSIVITY WITHOUT PATENTS 1445 va......
-
THE DEATH OF THE GENUS CLAIM.
...In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495-96 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See generally Margaret Sampson, Comment, The Evolution of the Enablement and Written Description Requirements Under......
-
Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo.
...984 F.2d 1164, 1169-70 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (considering the relationship between disclosure and claims); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharma. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213-14 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (124) See supra note 10 and accompanying text (describing basic patent policy debates). (125) Supra Part II.A. (12......
-
The Antibody Patent Paradox.
...Sequences, 21 SANTA CLARA COMPUT. & HIGH TECH. L.J. 55, 71-72 (2004). (146.) See id. at 64-66; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212-14 (Fed. Cir. (147.) See, e.g., Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Bioscis. APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming rejection ......