Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc.
Citation | 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492,839 F.3d 1111 |
Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
Docket Number | 2015–1881 |
Parties | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Children's Medical Center Corporation, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NKA Shire Pharmaceuticals LLC, Shire Regenerative Medicine, Inc., Defendants–Appellants |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Daryl L. Wiesen , Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by Kevin Paul Martin .
Sandra Kuzmich , Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Edgar Haug, Laura Ann Fanelli, Russell Alan Garman, Jonathan Herstoff .
Before O'Malley, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.
.
Stoll
, Circuit Judge.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Children's Medical Center Corporation (collectively, “MIT”) brought suit against Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shire Regenerative Medicine, Inc. (collectively, “Shire”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,770,193
and 5,759,830. The ' 193 and '830 patents are directed to three-dimensional scaffolding for growing cells in vitro to produce organ tissue in vivo. Following the district court's construction of the terms “vascularized organ tissue” and “cells derived from a vascularized tissue” and its determination that the term “three-dimensional scaffold” was not indefinite, the parties stipulated to a final judgment of validity and infringement. For the reasons below, we affirm.
In the field of organ transplantation
, surgeons face the challenge of donor scarcity in addition to the technical complexity of transplanting whole or segmented organs into organ recipients. Given the limited availability of implantable organs, scientists have developed methods of growing artificial organ tissue in vitro1 by seeding cells onto support structures, known as scaffolds or matrices. These scaffolds are engineered to allow cells to attach and grow, while enabling the diffusion of vital cell nutrients to the cells to contribute to the growth of new functional tissue.
Before the inventions of the asserted patents, scientists created organ tissue with scaffolds made of either “permanent” synthetic polymers or biodegradable, non-synthetic materials like collagen. Preferably, these scaffolds eventually would be absorbed by the body, leaving behind the newly formed tissue. With the former method, however, the “permanent” synthetic matrix could not be absorbed by the body. Drawbacks of the latter collagen-based matrix included the inability to control the collagen structure's configuration and the variable absorption of the collagen matrix by the surrounding tissue.
It was also generally understood that in engineering thick organs, like a liver or pancreas, the cells at the center of the artificial structure tended to die as the cell density increased. This was due to the decreased diffusion rate of oxygen and nutrients to the inner cells at the center of the growing structure. These prior art methods of tissue engineering
, therefore, were primarily used to make thinner organs such as artificial skin.
In the face of these challenges, the inventors of the '193
and 193 patent col. 6 ll. 25–27; 193 patent col. . 3 ll. 9–13.
and '830 patents claim three-dimensional, synthetic, biodegradable structures for growing tissue for vascularized organs as well as methods for creating those structures. MIT brought suit against Shire in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Shire's sale of its Dermagraft® scaffold infringes claims 1–4, 6–9, and 15–16 of the '193 patent and claims 1–4, 6, and 8 of the '830 patent. Claim 1 of the '830 patent is illustrative and recites the following, with emphasis given to the disputed terms:
'830 patent
col. 24 ll. 23–46 (emphases added).
Shire's accused Dermagraft® scaffold uses a synthetic, bioabsorbable scaffold seeded with connective tissue cells called fibroblasts to grow the dermis (or inner) layer of skin for “the treatment of full-thickness diabetic foot ulcers
.” J.A. 1004. Product literature for Dermagraft® describes that “[d]uring the manufacturing process, the human fibroblasts are seeded onto a bioabsorbable polyglactin mesh scaffold.” Id. After seeding onto the Dermagraft® scaffold, “[t]he fibroblasts proliferate to fill the interstices of this scaffold and secrete human dermal collagen, matrix proteins, growth factors and cytokines, to create a three-dimensional human dermal substitute containing metabolically active, living cells.” Id. The fibroblasts attach to the top, bottom, and sides of the fibers of the mesh scaffolding that, after implantation, is gradually absorbed by the surrounding tissue. According to MIT, Shire uses a three-dimensional, synthetic, biodegradable scaffold to grow vascularized organ tissue and thus infringes the asserted claims of the '193
and '830 patents.
The parties dispute whether prosecution history disclaimer applies to the asserted claims. In particular, Shire argues that prosecution disclaimers apply to the terms “vascularized organ tissue” and “cells derived from a vascularized tissue.” Prosecution of the asserted patents began with their parent application, U.S. Application Serial No. 06/933,018, filed in 1986 and abandoned in 1989. The '193 patent
, a continuation of the parent, and the prior art rejections, and the claim language evolved over the course of prosecution.
As originally filed, the pending claims in the '018 application were directed to:
[P]roviding a matrix formed of a biocompatible material, wherein said matrix is used to support cell growth in a nutrient solution, said matrix being configured to allow adequate diffusion of nutrients from the nutrient solution to all of the cells so as to maintain cell growth and proliferation to form a three dimensional cell-matrix structure.
J.A. 22231–32. An examiner rejected the '018 application's claims based on prior art that, according to the examiner, “shows a tissue culture method on a carrier as claimed.” J.A. 22212. In 1988, during an examiner interview in response to the prior art rejection, MIT explained that the prior art was directed to skin substitutes. In particular, MIT described the prior art as “limited to extremely thin pieces of collagen matrix for use in preparing skin substitutes, which could not be used to create organ equivalents.” J.A. 22234. This interview summary further explained that “although porous structures for implantation have been made in the past, the pores have not allowed adequate diffusion through the matrix material between the environment and the attached cells to support the growth and proliferation of cells on the interior of the matrix material unless the dimensions of the matrix were very small.” J.A. 22238. At the same time, MIT sought to amend the claims to recite a “matrix having adequate surface area to provide surfaces of attachment for a cell suspension and a geometric configuration to uniformly support cell growth in a nutrient solution.” J.A. 22231–32.
Dr. Vacanti, a co-inventor on the asserted patents, submitted a declaration in 1989 in support of allowance of the '018 application, explaining that the prior art methods relied on by the examiner to reject the claims were “limited to a very thin layer of cells, principally serving as skin substitutes.” J.A. 22268. He described the “key difference” between the claims and prior art as “the design of a polymer scaffold which provides adequate sites for attachment and growth of enough cells to survive and function in vivo yet does not limit survival and growth of cells adjacent to the matrix surface as cells increase in number in vitro.” Id. Dr. Vacanti further emphasized the “general...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DynaEnergetics Eur. GmbH v. Hunting Titan, Inc.
...and the challenger bears the burden of establishing invalidity.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 282). See also Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2130 n. 10 (2014) (same)......
-
Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.
... ... Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc. , 839 F.3d 1111, ... ...
-
E-Numerate Sols. v. United States
...of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes."); see also Mass. Inst. Of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc., 83 839 F.3d 1111, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding unpersuasive prosecution history arguments based on statements "made in the context of different claims that......
-
Parity Networks, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., CASE NO. 6:17-cv-683-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED
...Id. at 13 (citing MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, 2010 WL 3075289, *2 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Mass Inst. Of Tech v. Shire Pharm., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In its reply, Plaintiff argues that HPE has not shown "a clear and unmistakable disavowal." Doc. No. 76 at 6 (citation ......
-
Disclaimer Don't Stick In An IPR
...recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution." Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (ellipsis, alterations, and citation omitted). However, a patentee will only be bound to a "disavowal [that was] both ......
-
Federal Circuit Draws The Line Of Disclaimers' Binding Power
...Ltd., 778 F. App'x 897, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2019)) 3 CUPP Computing AS, 2022 WL 16954357, at *5. 4 Mass Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 5 CUPP Computing, 778 F.App'x at 5* (quoting Mass Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 20......
-
Decisions in Brief
...the inal product that left LifeCell’s hands was complete and was infringed in that condition. Mass. Inst. Of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit afirmed the district court’s claim construction of several terms. Use of the ord......