Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

• Decision Date: 15 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012–1120.,2012–1120.
• Citation: 713 F.3d 1090
• Parties: BIOGEN IDEC, INC. and Genentech, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC and Glaxo Group Limited, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

713 F.3d 1090

BIOGEN IDEC, INC. and Genentech, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC and Glaxo Group Limited, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 2012–1120.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 16, 2013.

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 15, 2013.

John Allcock, DLA Piper LLP, of San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Kathryn Riley Grasso, Stanley J. Panikowski and Aaron Fountain. Of counsel on the brief were Meredith Martin Addy, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, of Chicago, IL. Of counsel was Rama C. Elluru, of Washington, DC.

Lisa M. Ferri, Mayer Brown LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were Brian W. Nolan; Vera A. Nackovic and Andrea C. Hutchinson, of Chicago, IL.

Before DYK, PLAGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Biogen Idec Inc. and Genentech, Inc. (collectively, “Biogen”) seek review of the district court's construction of the disputed claim term “anti-CD20 antibody” that narrowed the term based on prosecution history disclaimer. Under that construction, Biogen stipulated that it could not prove infringement by GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Glaxo Group Ltd. (collectively, “GSK”). Biogen took that approach in order to appeal the district court's claim construction. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding a clear and unmistakable disclaimer and, therefore, we affirm.

I. Background

In the mid–1990's, scientists from Biogen discovered that patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) could be treated using anti-CD20 antibodies like Biogen's Rituxan® (rituximab). CLL is a cancer in which a type of white blood cell called a B lymphocyte (“B cell”) becomes cancerous. Normal B cells of CLL patients undergo a malignant transformation, which causes the cells to replicate and accumulate in the bloodstream, bone marrow, and certain tissues at much higher levels than in a healthy person. Symptoms of CLL include fatigue, fevers, bleeding, and infections caused by a decrease in the number of red blood cells and platelets due to the overabundance of B cells in the blood stream. Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 10–CV–00608, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120043, at *2 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 17, 2011). Patients also exhibit signs of the condition including enlarged lymph nodes and spleen from an excess of B cells in the tissue of those organs. Id. As a result, researchers sought a treatment regime that mitigated both the symptoms and signs of CLL by reducing the number cancerous B cells without the deleterious side effects stemming from other treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy.

Fortunately, both normal and cancerous B cells have a portion of the CD20 antigen protein exposed beyond the cell surface. Anti–CD20 antibodies are capable of targeting and binding to these CD20 antigens on the B cell's surface. Once the anti-CD20 antibody successfully attaches to the CD20 antigen, it destroys the B cell regardless of whether it is normal or cancerous. For patients with CLL, administering the anti-CD20 antibodies thus mitigates the symptoms and signs caused by the condition while still allowing their bodies to replenish normal B cells.

Biogen sought a patent covering, inter alia, a method for treating patients with CLL involving administering a therapeutically effective amount of the anti-CD20 antibody. It was eventually awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (“the '612 patent”), entitled “Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies Associated with Circulating Tumor Cells Using Chimeric Anti–CD20 Antibody.” The patent was not limited to any particular type of anti-CD20 antibody and, in fact, has dependent claims claiming specific types of antibodies: chimeric, ¹rituximab, humanized,² and human. In describing its preferred embodiment, the patent explains that

the anti-CD20 antibody will bind CD20 with high affinity, i.e., ranging from 10^-5 to 10^-9 M. Preferably, the anti-CD20 antibody will comprise a chimeric, primate, PRIMATIZED®, human, or humanized antibody. Also, the invention embraces the use of antibody fragments ... and aggregates thereof.

'612 patent col. 2 ll. 45–51. But in this regard, the specification acknowledges that “a particularly preferred chimeric anti-CD20 antibody is RITUXAN® (rituximab), which is a chimeric gamma 1 anti-human CD20 antibody.” Id. col. 3 ll. 18–20. Additionally, the '612 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,736,137 (“the '137 patent”), which teaches the isolation, screening, and characterization of Rituxan®. The '137 patent also defines an “anti-CD20 antibody” as used therein as “an antibody which specifically recognizes a cell surface ... typically designated as the human B lymphocyte restricted differentiation antigen Bp35, commonly referred to as CD20.” '137 patent col. 6 l. 65 to col. 7 l. 2.

At the time of Biogen's discovery, scientists already knew that available anti-CD20 antibodies could treat certain cancers of the lymph nodes, called B-cell lymphomas, such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Unlike CLL, however, lymphomas are characterized by B cells with a greater density of CD20 antigen targets on the surface and fewer cancerous B cells in the bloodstream. Thus, lymphomas were readily treated with anti-CD20 antibodies, but it remained doubtful whether they would be effective against CLL.

Initially, it was believed that only one large loop, or epitope, of the CD20 antigen's protein chain was exposed on the cancerous B cell's surface, which made that loop the only suitable target for an anti-CD20 antibody. After Biogen filed its application for the '612 patent, other researchers discovered that the CD20 antigen had a second small loop, to which other anti-CD20 antibodies could attach.

During prosecution of the '612 patent, the examiner rejected all the claims because the specification did not provide enablement commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, which, under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard applied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), included “any and all anti-CD20 antibodies, no matter the specificity or affinity for the specific epitope on the circulating tumor cells.” Joint App'x 307. “[S]election of an antibody as an immunotherapeutic agent,” continued the examiner, “is an unpredictable task as the antibody must possess sufficient specificity and a high degree of affinity for its target for use as an immunotherapeutic agent and because these qualities are dependent on the physiology of the particular pathology and the accessibility of the target antigen.” Id. The examiner acknowledged that the specification was enabling for Rituxan®, but that it was “silent concerning what sort of specificity and affinity would be necessary” for other anti-CD20 antibodies. Id. In response, Biogen pointed to its disclosure of Rituxan® and maintained that

even though antibodies directed to the same antigen might have different affinities and functional characteristics, one of skill in the art could readily identify an antibody that binds to CD20 with similar affinity and specificity as does RITUXAN® using techniques that are well known in the art.... With that knowledge in hand, the skilled artisan could readily produce anti-CD20 antibodies using similar techniques, and screen such antibodies for those having an affinity and functional activity similar to RITUXAN®.

Joint App'x 324–25. After considering Biogen's arguments, the examiner withdrew her enablement rejection, and the claims eventually issued.

In 2002, GSK, in collaboration with Genmab A/S, developed a breakthrough anti-CD20 antibody, Arzerra® (ofatumumab), which is distinctly different from Rituxan® in several respects. Whereas Rituxan® attaches to the large loop, it is believed that Arzerra® attaches to the second small loop previously thought to be hidden inside the cell. This means that the Arzerra® anti-CD20 antibody differs from the Rituxan® anti-CD20 antibody with regard to specificity, or ability of the antibody to bind to a particular epitope of an antigen, and affinity, or tightness of the bond between the antibody and the antigen. Likewise, unlike Rituxan®, which is a chimeric antibody, Arzerra® is a fully human antibody, so there is less of a risk that the body will reject it and develop antibodies against it. Researchers believe that its fully human characteristic permits the antibody to bind to the small loop. Additionally, because Arzerra® binds to the small loop, it has a much greater affinity for the CD20 antigen, which means that it can bind longer, giving the antibody more time to kill the target B cell.

In March 2010, Biogen sued GSK for infringement of the '612 patent, asserting claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 14–17, 20–22, and 58–60. GSK counterclaimed, alleging noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of those claims. The district court held a Markman hearing, and on October 18, 2011, construed the following terms: “effective to treat the chronic lymphocytic leukemia,” “anti-CD20 antibody”/“CD–20 binding fragment,” ³ and “does not include treatment with a radiolabeled anti-CD20 antibody”/“radiation is not used.” For the term, “anti-CD20 antibody,” Biogen proposed the broad construction “an antibody that binds to a cell surface CD20 antigen.” The district court, however, adopted GSK's construction of “rituximab and antibodies that bind to the same epitope of the CD20 antigen with similar affinity and specificity as rituximab.” Biogen, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120043, at *31. It based this conclusion on prosecution history disclaimer wherein Biogen limited that term to overcome the examiner's enablement rejection. Following this construction, which excluded GSK's accused Arzerra® product, Biogen stipulated to noninfringement, and on November 15, 2011, the court entered judgment against Biogen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Biogen...