Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civil Action No. 93-110-JJF.

Citation14 F.Supp.2d 536
Decision Date01 June 1998
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 93-110-JJF.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Delaware
PartiesENZO BIOCHEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. CALGENE, INC., Defendant.

Josy W. Ingersoll, John W. Shaw, of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE, of counsel Richard L. DeLucia, Charles A. Weiss, of Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, for Plaintiff.

Patricia Smink Rogowski, of Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, DE, of counsel William F. Lee, James L. Quarles III, William G. McElwain, and David B. Bassett, of Hale and Dorr, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

OPINION

FARNAN, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.    INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 541
                      A. Description of Parties .......................................... 542
                      B. Jurisdiction .................................................... 542
                II.    SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND ................................................. 542
                      A. Basic Concepts Relating to Gene Regulation ...................... 542
                          1. DNA, RNA, Transcription and Translation ..................... 543
                          2. Differences Between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes .............. 544
                          3. Antisense ................................................... 544
                      B. Antisense Experimentation in Dr. Inoyue's Lab ................... 544
                      C. Dr. Izant and Dr. Weintraub's Work in Antisense Technology ...... 546
                      D. The Antisense Work of Other Scientists .......................... 546
                      E. The Enzo Patent Prosecution ..................................... 547
                         1. Patent Applications .......................................... 547
                         2. Prosecution History .......................................... 547
                         3. Dr. Inouye's Actions During Prosecution ...................... 547
                      F. The Calgene Patent Prosecution .................................. 548
                
                G. Prior Litigation Between Enzo and Calgene ....................... 548
                II.   INFRINGEMENT ....................................................................... 549
                         A. Establishing an Infringement Claim .............................. 549
                         B. The '931 Patent ................................................. 550
                              1. Claim interpretation .................................................... 550
                                 a. Claim 1 of the '931 Patent .............................. 550
                                 b. Claim 3 of the '931 Patent .............................. 553
                                 c. Claim 5 of the '931 Patent .............................. 553
                                 d. Claim 7 of the '931 Patent .............................. 554
                                 e. Claim 34 of the '931 Patent ............................. 554
                                 f. Claim 66 of the '931 Patent ............................. 554
                                 g. Claim 73 of the '931 Patent ............................. 554
                                 h. Claim 74 of the '931 Patent ............................. 555
                              2. Literal Infringement of Enzo '931 Patent ................................ 555
                                 a. Claim 1 of the '931 Patent .............................. 555
                                 b. Claim 3 of the '931 Patent .............................. 557
                                 c. Claim 5 of the '931 Patent .............................. 557
                                 d. Claim 7 of the '931 Patent .............................. 558
                                 e. Claim 34 of the '931 Patent ............................. 559
                                 f. Claim 66 of the '931 Patent ............................. 559
                                 g. Claim 73 of the '931 Patent ............................. 559
                                 h. Claim 74 of the '931 Patent ............................. 559
                              3. Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement .................................... 559
                         C. The '149 Patent ................................................. 560
                              1. Claim Interpretation .................................................... 560
                                 a. Claim 1 of the '149 Patent .............................. 560
                                 b. Claim 31 of the '149 Patent ............................. 561
                                 c. Claim 61 of the '149 Patent ............................. 561
                                 d. Claim 93 of the '149 Patent ............................. 562
                                 e. Claim 125 of the '149 Patent ............................ 562
                                 f. Claim 159 of the '149 Patent ............................ 562
                              2. Literal Infringement of the '149 Patent ................................. 562
                                 a. Claim 1 of the '149 Patent .............................. 562
                                 b. Claim 31 of the '149 Patent ............................. 563
                                 c. Claim 61 of the '149 Patent ............................. 564
                                 d. Claim 93 of the '149 Patent ............................. 564
                                 e. Claim 125 of the '149 Patent ............................ 565
                                 f. Claim 159 of the '149 Patent ............................ 565
                              3. Infringement of the '149 Patent under Doctrine of Equivalents ........... 565
                         D. Conclusion ...................................................... 565
                IV.   INVALIDITY OF ENZO PATENTS ......................................................... 565
                         A. Enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................... 566
                              1. Arguments of the Parties ................................................ 566
                              2. Establishing an Enablement Claim ........................................ 566
                              3. Enablement of '931 and '149 Patents ..................................... 567
                                 a. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................... 567
                                 b. Undue Experimentation ................................... 567
                V.    INVALIDITY OF  CALGENE'S '065 PATENT ............................................... 569
                         A. Arguments of the Parties ........................................ 569
                         B. Legal Standard .................................................. 570
                         C. Discussion ...................................................... 570
                VI.   ENZO'S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM ................................................. 570
                         A. Arguments of the Parties ........................................ 570
                         B. Legal Standard .................................................. 571
                         C. Discussion ...................................................... 571
                VII.  ATTORNEY'S FEES .................................................................... 571
                VIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 571
                
I. INTRODUCTION

This is a patent case involving genetic antisense technology. Plaintiff Enzo Biochem, Inc. ("Enzo") brought this action against Defendant Calgene, Inc. ("Calgene") for infringement of two patents for which it is the exclusive licensee (D.I.363). Enzo claims that Calgene infringes United States Patent Number 5,190,931 (the "'931 Patent") and United States Patent Number 5,208,149 (the "'149 Patent") by its production of the FLAVR SAVR ® brand tomato. Enzo also seeks a declaratory judgment finding Calgene's patent, United States Patent Number 5,107,065 (the "Calgene '065 Patent") invalid and unenforceable on the grounds of misuse, anticipation and obviousness. Finally, Enzo alleges malicious prosecution by Calgene as a result of Calgene's litigation against Enzo in California. (D.I. 1 at 2, 44-46).

Defendant Calgene has counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the '931 Patent, the '149 Patent and a third Enzo patent, United States Patent Number 5,272,065 (the "Enzo '065 Patent") are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. (D.I. 54 at 367). Calgene contends that Enzo's patents are invalid on the grounds of non-enablement, anticipation, obviousness and inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). Additionally, Calgene defends the validity of the Calgene '065 Patent, although it alleges that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. (D.I.367). Both parties seek an award of a attorney's fees, claiming that the case is exceptional. (D.I. 363; D.I. 369).

In the first patent infringement action filed by Enzo against Calgene, Enzo alleged infringement of its '931 Patent only. (D.Del. C.A. 93-110-JJF). In the second infringement action Enzo filed against Calgene, it alleged infringement of its '149 Patent. (D.Del.C.A.94-57-JJF). Because both actions involved similar factual and legal issues, the Court ordered the actions to be consolidated on October 7, 1994. (D.I.322).

The Court bifurcated the liability and damages issues for purposes of trial and conducted a bench trial on the issues of infringement, willful infringement, validity, enforceability, and attorney's fees in April, 1995. (D.I.464).1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court issued an Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shortly thereafter, the parties informed the Court of an inconsistency in its Opinion. In order to prevent confusion on appeal, the Court withdrew its Opinion.

Since withdrawing its Opinion, the Court has conducted a full review of the record and re-read the briefs submitted. As a result of this review, the Court has determined that its claim interpretation analysis omitted a discussion of the meaning of the disputed term "complementary" in Claim 1 and Claim 34 of the '931 Patent. In the instant Opinion, the Court will include a discussion of this issue in its claim interpretation analysis. This Opinion shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case, superseding any previous findings and conclusions.

A. Description of Parties

Enzo is a company which seeks to find and create new technologies for development into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Enzo Biochem v. Calgene
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 24, 1999
    ...U.S. Patents 5,190,931 and 5,208,149 are invalid and not infringed by Calgene, Inc.'s FLAVR SAVR tomato. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 14 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Del. 1998); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civ. Action Nos. 93-110-JJF, 94-57-JJF (D. Del. June 4, 1998) (final judg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT