SAYLOR, District Judge.
This is a patent infringement action involving a class of antibodies developed to treat certain auto-immune diseases. Plaintiffs Abbott GmbH & Co., KG; Abbott
The parties are simultaneously before this Court on an appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI") regarding essentially the same subject matter. On December 12, 2007, the BPAI declared an interference between Abbott's '128 patent and Centocor's pending Patent Application No. 10/912,994 for Stelara. That proceeding was instituted to determine priority of invention as between the parties and whether the '128 patent claimed material that was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. On August 6, 2009, the BPAI ruled for Abbott on these issues. Centocor has petitioned for judicial review of the interference decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146.
This Court conducted a Markman hearing in the infringement action and issued its final claim construction decision on May 5, 2011, 2011 WL 1791684. The parties have now filed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment on the issues of validity and infringement.
This case concerns the interrelation of two statutory causes of action as well as questions of infringement involving application of the claim construction to technical subject matter. A brief review of the relevant statutory, factual, and procedural background is therefore warranted.
Two statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 281, provide a patentee with a cause of action for damages and injunctive relief for patent infringement. Infringement analysis is a "two-step process in which the court first determines, as a matter of law, the correct claim scope, and then the factfinder compares the properly construed claim to the accused device to determine, as a matter of fact, whether all of the claim limitations are present, either literally or by a substantial equivalent in the accused device." IEX Corp. v. Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc., 122 Fed.Appx. 458, 464 (Fed.Cir.2005).
Because "an invalid patent cannot be infringed," Viskase Corp. v. American Nat'l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir.2001), a defendant in an infringement action may assert invalidity as an affirmative defense. However, a granted patent is "presumed valid," 35 U.S.C. § 282, and
The Director of the PTO is authorized to declare and conduct interference proceedings by 35 U.S.C. § 135. The statute provides, in relevant part:
35 U.S.C. § 135(a).
Once an interference is properly declared, a priority determination is mandatory. See Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1421-22 (Fed.Cir.1996). A patentability determination, if fairly raised and fully developed before the BPAI, is "nearly mandatory." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1317 (Fed.Cir.2000); see also Perkins v. Kwon, 886 F.2d 325, 328-29 (Fed. Cir.1989) (interpreting the phrase "may determine questions of patentability" to require a determination unless patentability is not placed at issue); Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Cardiac Sci. Operating Co., 590 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing Perkins, 886 F.2d at 328).
Once the BPAI has rendered a final decision, Section 146 of the Patent Act authorizes an aggrieved party to seek review of that decision in federal district court. The statute provides:
35 U.S.C. § 146. "District court review of an interference proceeding under Section 146 is an equitable remedy of long standing." General Instrument Corp. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 995 F.2d 209, 214 (Fed. Cir.1993).
An action in district court pursuant to Section 146 takes the form of a "hybrid appeal/trial de novo proceeding in which the PTO record is admitted on motion of either party [but] may be supplemented by further testimony." Human Genome, 552 F.Supp.2d at 468 (quoting General Instrument, 995 F.2d at 212). To the extent that no new evidence is presented in the Section 146 action, the district court reviews the factual findings of the BPAI for "substantial evidence," the standard applicable to review of agency fact-finding under the Administrative Procedure Act. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999). However, if the parties do introduce new evidence in the form of live testimony before the district court, its review of the BPAI's determinations is de novo. Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2000). Although it has some aspects of a trial, a Section 146 action "is not a new claim, but an authorized phase of the interference proceeding that is conducted by the PTO and is subject to judicial review." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 473 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2007); Rexam Indus. Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 182 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.1999) (stating that a Section 146 action is "derivative of the interference conducted in the PTO.").
The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted.
IL-12 is a member of a family of naturally occurring human proteins, called cytokines. It assists the immune system by binding to receptors on the surfaces of certain cells as part of the body's inflammation response to infection. Structurally, IL-12 is composed of two smaller molecules, a p35 subunit and a p40 subunit.
In some individuals, the body can over-produce IL-12, causing auto-immune diseases such as psoriasis, where the body's immune system chronically targets healthy human tissue instead of foreign contaminants. One way of treating such diseases is by inhibiting or blocking the effects of IL-12 through the use of antibodies. Antibodies are proteins that attach themselves to a target molecule — called an "antigen" for that antibody — by binding with a portion of that antigen called an "epitope." The immune system produces antibodies that typically target antigens such as viruses, foreign bacteria, or other foreign substances, but an antibody may also target a non-foreign antigen such as IL-12.
The ability of an antibody to bind to a specific antigen is determined by its molecular structure. All antibodies share a general structure consisting of two identical "heavy" chains and two identical "light" chains that are joined together in a "Y" shape. Some portions of these protein chains are constant, meaning that the same sequences of amino acids appear in all antibodies. Other segments vary, but are constant for all antibodies of a given
The immune system naturally develops antibodies as a response to a foreign antigens in the body. A class of white blood cells called B cells assemble the DNA sequences that encode those antibodies out of component antibody genes. These component genes are germline DNA sequences, meaning that they are part of the person's DNA that is inherited from his or her parents. The B cells produce a large variety of antibodies from a limited pool of germline antibody genes by splicing and rearranging those genes in a process called recombination. Further antibody diversity is achieved through a process called N-nucleotide addition. N-nucleotides are short segments of DNA that is "non-template," meaning that it is not part of any germline DNA sequence. In N-nucleotide addition, individual N-nucleotides are added at the junctions where the segments of spliced antibody genes are rejoined. This assembly and mutation process adds variation to the DNA that encodes the variable regions of antibodies, allowing the creation of a large array of antibodies with unique binding properties. B cells that assemble effective antibodies then proliferate and produce more antibodies; by binding to their target, these antibodies allow the immune system to destroy or remove it from the body.
Because, however, IL-12 is a non-foreign, human protein, the immune system does not naturally produce antibodies against it. Treatment of the over-production of IL-12 therefore requires the artificial creation of such antibodies. The subject matter of Abbott's '128 and '485 patents is a set of antibodies for IL-12 developed through genetic engineering techniques. Likewise, Stelara contains an antibody developed by Centocor that, while structurally distinct from the antibodies described in Abbott's patents, also targets human IL-12.
To be safe and effective as a treatment for the overproduction of a human antigen like IL-12, an antibody must share certain general characteristics with naturally-occurring human antibodies. If it does not, the antibody may be recognized by the body as foreign and thereby itself become the target of a potentially dangerous immune response.
An early method for artificially creating an antibody to a human antigen was to inject the antigen into a non-human species, typically a mouse. B cells in the mouse would then develop antibodies to what the mouse's immune system perceived as a foreign antigen. An antibody produced in this way is not human, but murine, and so it has limited usefulness for treatment. An alternative method is to create a "chimeric antibody" by taking a
Two technologies allow the development of "fully human" antibodies that target human antigens with minimal risk of triggering adverse immune reactions. The first method, phage display technology, involves the use of bacteria that have been transfected with viral DNA that contains DNA corresponding to human antibody variable regions. The bacteria create viruses that have those variable regions expressed as proteins on their surfaces. The viruses that display antibody proteins with desired binding properties are screened (or "panned") by bringing them in contact with the target antigen and removing those that bind to it. The DNA encoding the corresponding antibody is then isolated and replicated. An antibody produced by this method is "recombinant," meaning that it is created by splicing and recombining DNA.
The second method for producing human antibodies harnesses the immune system of a transgenic mouse.
To be effective in treating diseases caused by over-produced IL-12, an antibody produced by the methods previously described must possess several characteristics. One such characteristic is "specificity" to IL-12. An antibody is highly specific to an antigen if it attaches only to that antigen. An antibody with low specificity can be less effective because some of the
Two other desirable characteristics of an antibody are "affinity" and "neutralizing" ability. "Affinity" is the strength with which an antibody binds, or attaches, to a target antigen. "Neutralizing" ability is the capability of that antibody to inhibit one or more biological activities of the antigen to which it binds. Although high affinity is commonly associated with neutralizing ability, an antibody may have high affinity but be non-neutralizing.
One measure of affinity is the dissociation constant, or "K
The k
Accurate measurement of binding properties using SPR requires appropriate test conditions. These conditions are controlled by adjusting certain experimental conditions. Two such parameters are "flow rate" and "antibody surface density." Flow rate, the rate at which the antigen solution is passed over the sensor surface, is measured in micro-liters per minute (μl/min). Antibody surface density, which refers to the amount of immobilized antibody on the sensor chip surface, is measured in "resonance units" ("RUs").
The neutralizing ability of an antibody can be measured in terms of its "IC
The IL-12 antibodies described in the '128 and '485 patents were developed using phage display technology in a collaboration of three separate companies: BASF BioResearch Corporation (a predecessor to Abbott, which for the sake of convenience
During a meeting on July 13, 1993, three Abbott scientists — Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee — suggested antibodies that specifically bind to IL-12 as a potential target for research. A memorandum was circulated identifying these antibodies as a research priority. In August 1993, Abbott entered into a research agreement with CAT for the development of antibodies to human antigens.
In late 1995 and early 1996, researchers working on the project identified several antibodies with the ability to bind to IL-12. These antibodies, known as the Joe 7, 9, and 10 antibodies, respectively, were subsequently used to develop antibodies for IL-12 with higher affinity and neutralizing effect. Laboratory manipulation of the amino-acid sequences of Joe 9 eventually yielded an antibody called Y61, which had substantially improved ability to bind to and neutralize IL-12. Further experimentation led to the discovery of an antibody known as J695, which binds to and neutralizes IL-12 to a degree that makes it effective for treatment.
On March 25, 1999, Abbott filed a provisional application for a patent on human antibodies that specifically bind to human IL-12. On March 24, 2000, it filed a related application, U.S. Patent Application 09/534,717, that described numerous antibodies that bind to and neutralize IL-12. The application set forth 74 claims covering antibodies that share with the disclosed antibodies particular binding properties in relation to IL-12. The PTO granted the application as the '128 patent on July 5, 2005.
At some time during the development of the antibodies for IL-12 disclosed in the '128 patent, Abbott became aware that those antibodies also bind to another human cytokine, interleukin-23 ("IL-23").
On July 1, 2004, Abbott filed U.S. Patent Application 10/884,830 as a divisional of the 09/534,717 application. The new application claimed antibodies that bind to IL-12, IL-23, or any antigen that shares certain components or features of those interleukins. Abbott amended the application on January 4, 2007, and the PTO granted the amended application as the '485 patent on March 17, 2009.
Abbott currently has an antibody product within the scope of its patents called ABT-874, or briakinumab. The drug, which treats psoriasis and other diseases by targeting IL-12 and IL-23, is in late-stage clinical trials.
In approximately March 1997, Centocor scientists, under the direction of Jill Giles-Komar, began work on developing a fully human neutralizing antibody to IL-12 using transgenic mouse technology. On September 4, 1997, one scientist on the team identified a hybridoma that produced an antibody that binds to IL-12; that antibody was later named ustekinumab.
Further experimentation on ustekinumab followed. On August 7 and September 29, 2000, Centocor filed provisional patent applications claiming human, neutralizing antibodies to IL-12. It filed a non-provisional application on the subject matter on August 1, 2001. On August 6, 2004, it filed U.S. Patent Application 10/912,994 as a divisional of the 2001 application.
Centocor has since developed Stelara, a drug based on ustekinumab that Abbott contends infringes its patents. Stelara has received FDA approval for use in the United States.
On December 12, 2007, the BPAI declared an interference between Abbott's '128 patent and Centocor's still-pending U.S. Patent Application 10/912,994. It instituted a proceeding to determine priority under Section 102(g), obviousness under Section 103, and patent validity under the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of Section 112. The interference included a single count, which the PTO defined as "[a]n isolated human antibody according to claim 1 of U.S. Application 10/912,994 or claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,914,128." (Oyloe Ex. 21, Interference Decl. at 5).
On August 10, 2009, Abbott filed suit against Centocor in this Court, alleging that the sale of Stelara infringed upon the '128 and '485 patents. On August 28, 2009, Centocor instituted actions in the District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the PTO Board's ruling pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146 and seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of Abbott's '128 and '485 patents. In accordance with the "first-filed" rule, this Court denied Centocor's motion to transfer the infringement action to the District of Columbia, while that court granted Abbott's motion to transfer the Section 146 and declaratory judgment proceedings here. This Court then consolidated the infringement and declaratory judgment actions for all purposes and consolidated all three actions for purposes of discovery.
After conducting a Markman hearing with respect to the construction of the relevant claims, this Court issued its original claim construction order on March 15,
The parties have now filed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment. The first set of motions concerns Centocor's contention that the claims in Abbott's patents that are asserted against it are invalid. The second set addresses whether Stelara infringes the asserted claims of the patents.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). "Essentially, Rule 56[] mandates the entry of summary judgment `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Coll v. PB Diagnostic Sys., 50 F.3d 1115, 1121 (1st Cir.1995) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). In making that determination, the Court views "the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing reasonable inferences in his favor." Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2009).
"Cross motions for summary judgment neither alter the basic Rule 56 standard, nor warrant the grant of summary judgment per se. Cross motions simply require us to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not disputed. As always, we resolve all factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment has entered." Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted).
After this Court issued its claim construction decision, the parties filed twelve motions, which are summarized in the following table:
Plaintiffs' Motion Defendants' Motion Subject Matter Summary Judgment Motion Whether the BPAI interference #2: that defendants are collaterally precludes raising estopped from alleging validity issues in this action invalidity of the '128 patent Summary Judgment Motion Summary Judgment Motion Validity of '128 and '485 #3: that claim limitations relating #1: that the Kd claims are patents under 35 U.S.C. to surface plasmon resonance indefinite § 112, ¶ 2 are not indefinite Summary Judgment Motion Validity of '128 and '485 patents #7: that all asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, lack written description ¶ 1 Summary Judgment Motion Validity of the '485 patent #3: that the p19 claims lack under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 written description Summary Judgment Motion Summary Judgment Motion Validity of '128 and '485 patents #4: that the named inventors' #5: that the Joe antibodies under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
own work is not "secret qualify as prior art and (g)(2) prior art" Summary Judgment Motion Validity of '128 and '485 patents #6: that Stelara anticipated under 35 U.S.C. all asserted claims and/or § 102(g)(2) composition claims Summary Judgment Motion Summary Judgment Motion Whether Stelara infringes #1: infringement of k off #2: non-infringement of all the '128 and '485 patents claims asserted claims Summary Judgment Motion Whether Stelara infringes #1: non-infringement of Kd the '128 and '485 patents claims Summary Judgment Motion Whether Stelara infringes #4: non-infringement of receptor the '128 patent binding assay claims Motion in limine to Exclude Whether evidence is MACE Evidence admissible at trial
The Court will address these motions in the order presented above.
Abbott contends that Centocor is precluded from raising invalidity of the '128 patent as a defense in this action because it raised invalidity of the patent during the interference proceeding and lost. In alternative, Abbott contends that Centocor is at least barred from raising the specific arguments for invalidity that it made before the BPAI.
Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the decision of one tribunal precludes re-litigation of the same issue in a subsequent lawsuit if "(1) the issue sought to be precluded in the later action is the same as that involved in the earlier action; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the judgment." Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 90 (1st Cir.2007).
In patent actions, courts have held that issue preclusion bars a litigant in an infringement action from raising issues that it has previously litigated and lost in another infringement action. In Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 332-33, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971), the Supreme Court established that the doctrine of non-mutual estoppel bars a patentee from asserting patent claims against one defendant
Those applications of issue preclusion are relatively straightforward, because the cases in which they apply involve only the effect of the decision in one infringement action on another subsequent infringement action. This case presents a more complicated situation. The validity issues that Centocor raised in this infringement action have previously been litigated not in a previous judicial action of the same form, but in a BPAI interference proceeding. Moreover, the same issues are simultaneously implicated in the concurrently pending Section 146 action in which Centocor is appealing the decision of the BPAI. The question before this Court is therefore how issue preclusion should operate in this unique procedural posture.
In its original briefs, Abbott argued only that Centocor was precluded from asserting invalidity by the BPAI decision. In response to the Court's request for further briefing on the significance of the pending Section 146 action, it has also asserted that the Section 146 proceeding may also have preclusive effect in this action.
The Patent Act's unusual conglomeration of administrative and judicial processes in the adjudication of patent validity complicates the applicability of the doctrine of issue preclusion in this case. The BPAI's status as an administrative agency alone does not prevent its decision from precluding certain issues in this action; a judgment by an agency can have preclusive effect in subsequent lawsuits if the parties had a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" and the agency rendered the decision while acting in a "judicial capacity." United States v. Utah Constr. & Min. Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966). When this is true, the agency judgment will ordinarily have preclusive effect, provided that the prerequisites for preclusion outlined in Ramallo are present. Global NAPs, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dep't of Telecomm. & Energy, 427 F.3d 34, 44 (1st Cir.2005) (stating, in dicta, that requirements for preclusion were not present in an administrative action, but ruling on other grounds); Aunyx Corp. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 978 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.1992) (applying requirements for issue preclusion to find that an agency decision did have preclusive effect).
The Court finds that, in the procedural posture of this lawsuit, the BPAI
Abbott insists that the BPAI decision is final notwithstanding the pending Section 146 action because that action is merely a form of appeal. Generally, the pendency of an appeal in a prior judicial action does not prevent the decision in that action from having the effect of issue preclusion. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir.1999). However, although Section 146 is typically referred to as a means to "appeal" decisions of the BPAI, the statute in fact creates a more complicated form of action — what the Federal Circuit has called a "hybrid of an appeal and a trial de novo." Winner, 202 F.3d at 1345 (quoting Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 592 (Fed.Cir.1997)).
This conclusion is consistent with cases in which courts have held that certain BPAI decisions had preclusive effect. Those cases are limited to situations where the party that lost before the agency declines to seek judicial review of the interference decision within the period for review prescribed by Section 146 and its implementing regulations. See 35 U.S.C. § 146; 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (establishing two-month limitations period for filing Section 146 action for review of interference decision). Once the period for review has elapsed, courts have deemed the BPAI decision to have "the same finality as the judgment of ... the courts would have had if one of them had reviewed it." Coakwell v. United States, 292 F.2d 918, 920 (Ct.Cl.
However, this case comes to the Court in a different posture. Not only did Centocor file a timely Section 146 action after it lost in the PTO, but that action is currently pending before this Court. Only one case brought to the Court's attention directly addresses issue preclusion in this context. In Streck v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., 2010 WL 519817 (D.Neb. Feb. 5, 2010), Streck brought an infringement action against R & D during the pendency of a PTO interference proceeding to which they were both parties. Five days after the jury returned a verdict in favor of Streck, the BPAI ruled in favor of R & D on the issue of priority and thereby invalidated Streck's patent. Streck then brought a timely Section 146 action for review of the interference decision in the same district court that had heard the infringement action. R & D filed a motion to vacate the judgment in the infringement action and stay that proceeding pending resolution of the Section 146 action, "based on its contention that the Board's priority decision operates to collaterally estop Streck from enforcing the court's judgment." Id. at *1. The district court denied R & D's motion, reasoning that, "Streck has challenged the decision of the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 146 in an action presently pending in this court.... Accordingly, the decision of the Board is not a final decision and cannot be accorded collateral estoppel effect." Id. It subsequently reversed the BPAI and found the patent valid, as the jury had. Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 744 F.Supp.2d 970, 986 (D.Neb.2010). This Court agrees with the court in Streck that a BPAI decision is not a "final judgment" for purposes of issue preclusion during the pendency of a Section 146 action appealing that decision.
Here, because Centocor has asserted its statutory right to judicial review of the interference decision, that decision is likewise not a final judgment. The availability of plenary review of the BPAI decision under Section 146 means, in the language of one early patent decision, that the administrative decision has not yet been "fortified by judicial decree or judgment or acquiescence." Minneapolis Harvester Works v. McCormick Harvesting-Mach. Co., 28 F. 565, 566 (C.C.D.Minn.1886) (denying motion for preliminary injunction in infringement action where injunction would be based on interference decision regarding validity, on the grounds that the interference decision alone was "far from res adjudicata"). Thus, because the BPAI decision is not yet a "final judgment," it does not preclude Centocor from raising invalidity defenses in this infringement action. See Ramallo Bros., 490 F.3d at 90.
Abbott argues that because the Section 146 action would have preclusive effect if it were concluded before the infringement action began, the Court has discretion to decide validity first in the
The Seventh Amendment provides that "[i]n Suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined...." Analysis of whether there is a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial of a given claim generally hinges on whether the claim was considered one "at common law" or one "at equity" at the time of the adoption of the amendment. See, e.g., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 348, 118 S.Ct. 1279, 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998). Here, the infringement action constitutes a legal action to which the right to a jury attaches, while the Section 146 action is an equitable proceeding ordinarily subject to trial by the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 377, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996) ("[I]nfringement cases ... must be tried to a jury."); General Instrument, 995 F.2d at 214 ("[R]eview of an interference proceeding under Section 146 is an equitable remedy of long standing."). It therefore seems clear that, had the Section 146 action been concluded before Abbott filed this lawsuit, validity determinations in that prior equitable proceeding would have preclusive effect here. If the Court invalidated the patent in the Section 146 action, the former patentee would have no right to instigate a subsequent infringement action at all. See 35 U.S.C. § 281. Alternatively, if the Court found that Centocor did not prove invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence, Centocor would be unable to prove invalidity in the infringement action under the clear-and-convincing standard because the finding in the earlier action would logically preclude its success under the higher standard in the later one.
In Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959), the Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in circumstances where
Of course, the equitable and legal claims related to validity that are at issue here do not arise in the same action. Rather, the infringement action and the Section 146 action were filed separately, in different courts, and by different parties (Abbott filed the infringement action, while Centocor filed the Section 146 action). Abbott argues that where equitable and legal claims are not raised within the same action, the decision in Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645 (1979), requires that the final resolution of common factual issues in a bench trial on the equitable claim will preclude their subsequent trial by jury on the legal claim. In Parklane Hosiery, a stockholder's class action was brought against a corporation on allegations that the corporation issued a false and misleading proxy statement. 439 U.S. at 325, 99 S.Ct. 645. Before that legal action reached trial, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought suit against the same corporation based on substantially similar factual allegations. Id. Although the two cases were filed in the same district, they were assigned to different judges. See Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc., 565 F.2d 815, 816-18 (2d Cir.1977). A bench trial was held in the SEC suit, and the district court found that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading. Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 325, 99 S.Ct. 645. The plaintiffs in the stockholder action then filed for summary judgment that the corporation was precluded from re-litigating the same issue in that suit. Id. On appeal, the Second Circuit held, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the Seventh Amendment was not violated by the preclusion of issues in the jury trial by the previous determination of those issues in the equitable proceeding. Id. at 325, 335, 99 S.Ct. 645. It distinguished Beacon Theatres as establishing "no more than a general prudential rule" that "the trial judge has only limited discretion in determining the sequence of trial and `that discretion... must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.'" Id. at 334, 99 S.Ct. 645 (quoting Beacon Theatres, 359 U.S. at 510, 79 S.Ct. 948).
This case, however, is distinguishable from Parklane Hosiery, and the "prudential rule" of Beacon Theatres is the guiding principle best suited to its unusual
Other courts considering the interplay between equitable and legal claims in patent actions have likewise managed such "mixed" cases so as to preserve the right to have facts determined by a jury. See Shum v. Intel Corp., 499 F.3d 1272, 1279 (Fed.Cir.2007) (holding that district court erred in holding bench trial on inventorship claim and subsequently granting summary judgment in state-law claims that depended on common factual disputes); Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co., 1998 WL 832609, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 1998) (holding that factual issues common to an inequitable conduct and a validity claim must be tried by a jury). Granted, those cases involved claims that were raised within the same action (that is, in a single complaint or its answer). Abbott emphasizes this point in support of its position that Beacon Theatres has no relevance where concurrent but separate actions present a court with both legal and equitable means for resolving common facts. However, the Supreme Court's reliance in Parklane Hosiery on a distinction between claims within one action and those in separate actions reflected not a rigid technical rule but rather a practical recognition that the existence of separate actions usually results in a particular sequence in which the actions are resolved. The Supreme Court's holding that the earlier-decided case precluded re-litigation of the same issues in the later action did not assign any particular significance to the fact that the actions were separate. Rather, its decision was based on the rationale that, once a prior equitable action has concluded, "there is no further factfinding function for the jury to perform, since the common factual issues have been resolved in the previous action." 439 U.S. at 336, 99 S.Ct. 645. But where the two actions are concurrently pending before one court, that principle has no application. Instead, Beacon Theatres requires that the factfinder's function should, if reasonably possible, be performed by a jury.
The invalidity claims will therefore be tried first to a jury. Once that proceeding has concluded, the Court will take up whatever matters remain for resolution in the Section 146 proceeding.
Accordingly, Abbott's motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of issue preclusion to Centocor's validity arguments will be denied.
Centocor seeks a ruling that certain claims, which it calls the "K
Section 112 of the Patent Act provides that "[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. It follows that, as a condition of validity, each patent claim must be sufficiently definite that "one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification." Exxon Research and Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001). A claim is not indefinite as long as its meaning is "discernible, even though the task [of claim construction] may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree." Id. at 1375. Rather, a claim is invalid for indefiniteness only if it is "insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can properly be adopted." Id. at 1378.
Claim indefiniteness is an issue of law to be decided by the court. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2010). While "a court may consider or reject certain extrinsic evidence in resolving disputes en route to pronouncing the meaning of claim language, the court is not crediting certain evidence over other evidence or making factual evidentiary findings. Rather, the court is looking to the extrinsic evidence to
Claim 1 of the '128 patent is representative of the K
The K
Specifically, Centocor contends that a person reasonably skilled in the art would not be able to measure the K
Centocor relies on Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. International Trade Comm'n, 341 F.3d 1332 (Fed.Cir.2003). In Honeywell, the Federal Circuit considered the construction of a claim-limitation term that "include[d] a numeric limitation without disclosing which of multiple methods of measuring that number should be used." Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249 (characterizing Honeywell). Three methods of measurement were known and accepted in the art, and each yielded a different measurement than the others. The court held that because the patent did not specify which method to use and because the choice of method would determine whether a product met the numeric limitation, the claim was indefinite. Honeywell, 341 F.3d at 1340.
Abbott relies on a set of cases that stand in contrast to Honeywell. In Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2011), the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling of indefiniteness where a claim limitation specified properties of a plastic as measured by a particular process, but failed to disclose specific moisture conditions to be used in applying that process. Finding that determining moisture conditions for the particular type of test identified was a "routine concern" in the field, the court held that "[w]ell known industry standards need not be repeated in a patent." Because "the record show[ed] that a person of ordinary skill in the art in this field would follow standard industry guidance for conditioning plastics for [the testing process]," the court held that the claim was sufficiently definite. Id. Similarly, in Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of a claim that provided for a tobacco-curing process in a "controlled environment" but did not specify quantitative limits for various parameters for that environment, such as humidity and temperature. The court explained that exact numbers were not required because curing conditions varied "for each cure" and "the record
These two sets of cases are consistent. Honeywell stands for the proposition that when multiple acceptable standards or methods for measuring whether a product meets a claim limitation exist and the choice of method will affect the resulting measurement, the patent must specify the appropriate standard or method. Wellman and Star Scientific stand for the proposition that, when a claim does specify the method of measurement, its omission of details about how to implement the method will not invalidate the claim if a person of ordinary skill in the art could infer those details from industry standards or professional judgment. Here, the patent specifies SPR as the appropriate method of measurement. The issue is therefore whether a person of skill in the art would require specification of surface density and flow-rate parameters to determine whether an antibody-antigen interaction exhibited a particular K
The record demonstrates that a person of skill in conducting SPR assays could discern the bounds of the K
Centocor provides no expert testimony contradicting this explanation.
Moreover, handbooks on the use of BIAcore instruments issued by BIAcore itself prior to the '128 patent application establish that appropriate methods for conducting SPR experiments were known at the time of the patent application. (Oyloe Exs. 38 and 68, BIAapplications Handbooks (dated 1994); Ex. 39, BIAsimulation Software Handbook (dated 1996); Ex. 40, BIAtechnology Handbook (dated 1994); Ex. 41, BIACORE 2000 Instrument Handbook (dated 1998); Ex. 42, BIACORE 3000 Instrument Handbook (dated 1999); Ex. 43, BIAevaluation 3.0 Software Handbook (dated 1997); Ex. 44, BIAcore 1000 Instrument Handbook (dated 1995)). Each of these handbooks contains guidance concerning experimental design and the analytical techniques necessary for measurement of kinetic constants and binding properties. The BIAapplications Handbook, in particular, contains a chapter on how "both kinetic and affinity constants can be derived" through SPR assays. It gives guidance on the appropriate surface density (Ex. 68, BIAapplications Handbook, at 5.3.3) and flow rate (Id. at 5.3.6). These documents set forth common practices and standards by which, in 1999, a person of reasonable skill in the field could use SPR assays to measure rate constants without being provided specific surface-density and flow-rate parameters.
Scientific literature from the same period provides further evidence that the state of the art allowed determination of proper experimental conditions. In a July 1999 article (published after Abbott's March 1999 application date but collecting material published in previous years), Dr. Myszka explained techniques for controlling variables, including surface density and flow rate, to improve the accuracy of measurements in antibody-antigen interactions. (Oyloe Ex. 46, Myszka 1999). That article further supports Abbott's position that, at the time of the filing of the patent, disclosing surface-density and flow-rate parameters was not necessary to describe with sufficient definiteness a claim limitation consisting of a K
Abbott describes the guidance provided in the BIAcore handbooks and then-existing scientific literature as industry "best practices." Centocor contends that the absence of the phrase "best practices" in those materials indicates that a person of skill in the art would not have known, in 1999, the bound of the K
Finally, Centocor's position that claims of this nature are indefinite is belied by the fact that similar limitation language appears in many patents covering similar subject matter. Abbott identifies 36 U.S. patents that include claims encompassing antibodies with particular binding characteristics as measured by SPR, none of which list specific experimental parameters for the SPR assays. (Oyloe Ex. 49, Kim Decl. ¶¶ 2-38). Centocor itself is the assignee named on three of these patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,935,344; 7,560,112; and 7,491,391). Although not determinative, the fact that terminology similar to that in the K
In sum, although SPR assay results may vary depending on various initial testing parameters, the phrase "as determined by surface plasmon resonance" describes a single identifiable experimental method. Because there is no ambiguity as to the measurement methodology contemplated by the K
Accordingly, as to the issue of claim definiteness, Centocor's motion will be denied and Abbott's motion will be granted.
Centocor seeks summary judgment that certain claims in the '128 and the '485 patents are invalid for lack of adequate written description.
The written-description requirement is contained in Section 112 of the Patent Act. The first paragraph of that section provides:
35 U.S.C. § 112. A patent claim is therefore invalid unless the disclosure in the specification "clearly allow[s] a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The written description "must convey with reasonable clarity ... that, as of the filing date sought, [the patentee] was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed.Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Centocor argues that all claims asserted against it are invalid for failure to satisfy the written-description requirement.
The Federal Circuit has stated that written-description problems are "especially acute with genus claims that use functional language" because such claims run the risk of "simply claim[ing] a desired result ... without describing species that achieve that result." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. For this kind of claim, the specification must therefore disclose either a "representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus," or the written-description requirement is not met. Id. at 1350. Abbott concedes that its patents do not disclose common structural features for the genuses it claims. The sole issue is therefore whether the patents disclose species that constitute a representative set within each genus claim.
There are no "bright-line rules" governing the number of representative species required to support a genus claim, because "this number necessarily changes with each invention, and it changes with progress in a field." Id. at 1351. In the biological arts, a patent "cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated." Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2004). Even in an "unpredictable art," however, "every species in a genus need not be described in order that a genus meet the written-description requirement." Regents of University of California v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502-03 (C.C.P.A.1976) (noting that requiring disclosure of every species within a genus claim would require a prohibitive amount of experimental work of the patentee)).
A patent's failure to comply with the written-description requirement may generally be determined as a matter of law, G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 927 (Fed.Cir.2004). However, summary judgment is not well-suited to the fact-intensive inquiry necessary to determine how many species are needed to represent a particular genus. See Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2005) (noting that the distinction between "generic inventions that are adequately supported, those that are merely a `wish' or `plan' ..., and those in between" is dependent on the "facts of the specific case").
Thus, courts have not found that disclosure of a particular number of species was insufficient to support a genus claim as a matter of law except in limited circumstances. Some have held that a written description was invalid as a matter of law where the patent failed to disclose a single species of the claimed genus. E.g., Centocor, 636 F.3d at 1350-51 ("[W]hile the patent broadly claims a class of antibodies that contain human variable regions, the
Centocor contends that the disclosed species do not adequately reflect the variability of the claimed genuses, regardless of their number. Specifically, it asserts that the antibodies disclosed represent a narrower class than the claimed genuses because the genuses encompass a varied range of amino-acid sequences, but the disclosed antibodies are all derived from a single "lineage" originating with the Joe 9 antibody.
It is true that a highly variable genus requires a greater variety of disclosed species to meet the written-description requirement. Carnegie Mellon, 541 F.3d at 1124 ("[W]hen there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus"). However, summary judgment on this issue is unwarranted because the parties' experts dispute the significance of the differences in amino-acid sequences on which Centocor relies.
First, Abbott offers expert testimony that the Joe 9 lineage itself contains a substantially varied set of sequences. Although the disclosed antibodies were derived from a common source (Joe 9), those experts assert that the process of random mutation undergone by the antibodies was designed to "mine the full variability" of human IL-12 antibodies, such that it is misleading to characterize the resulting antibodies as a "family" of closely related antibodies. (Oyloe Ex. 78, Marks Rebuttal Rpt., ¶¶ 212, 385, 391-94; Oyloe Ex. 92, Wilson Rpt. ¶¶ 66-74). Assessment of this factual question of the variability of the disclosed embodiments is not appropriate on summary judgment.
Second, Abbott's experts dispute whether sequence homology is a valid indicator of genus variability. Dr. Wilson asserts that a comparison of the amino-acid sequences of different antibodies "reveals little about how similar those antibodies are." (Oyloe Ex. 92, Wilson Rpt. ¶ 45; Oyloe Ex. 78, Marks Rebuttal Rpt. ¶¶ 375-81). While the structural diversity of antibodies capable of binding to IL-12 may be a factor in determining whether the patents include a representative set of species within their genus claims, the finder of fact, not this Court, must assess the conflicting testimony on this point.
In conclusion, because there are material factual disputes relevant to the adequacy of the written description in the patents for their claims to functionally-defined genuses, summary judgment will be denied as to that issue.
Centocor also asserts that the '485 patent contains a written description that is insufficient to support its "p19 claims" — claims that encompass antibodies that bind to the p40 subunit of both IL-12 and IL-23.
The patent makes one reference to the p19/p40 (IL-23) antigen, in the third example in the specification:
The patent examiner considered the adequacy of the written description for the p19 claims when Abbott added them to its 10/884,830 application in an amendment dated January 7, 2007. (Pearson Ex. 25, 2007 Amendment). The examiner initially construed the p19 claims broadly to encompass "a genus comprising all possible polypeptides with a molecular weight of 19 kDa." (Pearson Ex. 27, 2007 Office Action, at 4). Because the specification "provide[d] a description of only one possible p19 subunit," he rejected the claims. (Id. at 4-5).
Abbott filed a response to the examiner's rejection in which it clarified that its intention was "to encompass only the p19 subunit of IL-23, and not any other protein with a molecular weight of 19 kDa." (Oyloe Ex. 95, Response to Office Action, at 9). In support of that interpretation of the claims, Abbott argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the term "p19 subunit" as used in the claims referred to the p19 subunit of IL-23, based on the teachings of the specification's third example. (Id.). Abbott emphasized that the examiner himself had acknowledged that the specification did include a description of that p19 molecule and therefore satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Id.). Upon consideration of Abbott's arguments, the examiner canceled the initial rejection and allowed the p19 claims. (Oyloe Ex. 99, Notice of Allowability).
Centocor first contends that the patent's single-paragraph description of the p19/p40 heterodimer is insufficient as a matter of law because it names the antigen by the molecular weight of its subunits instead of by its protein structure.
Claims based on prophetic examples in the specification may be invalid as a matter of law where the disclosure "is not so much an `example' as it is a mere mention of a desired outcome" with "no descriptive link" between the disclosed invention and the claimed function. Id. But that is not the case here. The specification states that "[a]ntibodies which recognize p40 alone, but preferably in the context of a p70 molecule (e.g., J695 and Y61, see Example 3H) are expected to also neutralize both the p35/p40 molecules and the p19/p40 molecules." ('485 patent col. 111 ll. 36-42). That statement describes a feature IL-12 and IL-23 have in common — a specific p40 subunit to which the disclosed antibodies bind — that supports Abbott's assertion that the species it discloses as representative IL-12 antibodies are also representative of a class of IL-23 antibodies. A reasonable finder of fact could infer that this reference establishes a "descriptive link" between the disclosure and the p19 claims.
Whether the disclosed antibodies sufficiently describe a genus of IL-23 antibodies may depend on the state of knowledge in the art about IL-23 at the time of filing. However, the state of the art is a factual issue disputed by the parties. Abbott offers evidence that identification of the p40/p19 heterodimer (which would later be named IL-23) was made public at a scientific conference no later than March 4, 2000, before the patent's filing date of March 24, 2000.
The parties also dispute whether the disclosed antibodies adequately represent the genuses claimed by the p19 claims. Centocor cites two cases for the proposition that Abbott's failure to describe the protein structure of the p19 subunit renders its written description insufficient. In Alonso, the Federal Circuit affirmed a BPAI decision that a patent lacked written description for a genus of antibodies specific to neurofibrosarcoma where the specification disclosed only one species within that genus. 545 F.3d at 1023. In Noelle, the same court affirmed the decision of the BPAI invalidating a patent that "did not provide sufficient support for the claims to the [claimed] human antibody ... because [it] failed to disclose the structural elements of [the] human ... antibody or [its] antigen." 355 F.3d at 1349. Both cases are distinguishable procedurally and on the merits.
In Alonso, the court held the patent invalid because it disclosed neither common structural features of the claimed genus nor a representative number of species within that genus. See 545 F.3d at 1021-22
In Noelle, the determination of invalidity was premised on the patent's failure to disclose the structure of either an antibody within the claimed genus or its target antigen. 355 F.3d at 1349. Abbott, by contrast, offers evidence that the patent characterizes the claimed genus of antibodies through a representative set of species and that the target antigen, the p40 subunit of IL-23, was known in the art at the time of filing. That is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact.
In conclusion, summary judgment will be denied as to whether the written-description requirement was met for the p19/p40 claims because the record establishes relevant factual disputes regarding both the state of the art at the effective filing date and the sufficiency of the disclosed antibodies in representing the claimed genuses.
A patent is invalid if it is anticipated by, or is obvious in light of, prior art as defined by Section 102. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. As relevant here, that section provides:
35 U.S.C. § 102. Prior invention under Section 102(g)(2) occurs when another inventive entity was "the first party to reduce an invention to practice [or] to conceive the invention and [to exercise] reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice." Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1996).
If any single prior-art reference contains each limitation of an asserted
Priority, conception, and reduction to practice are questions of law that are based on subsidiary factual findings. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir.1998). Where the underlying facts are undisputed, however, prior art issues are amenable to summary judgment. See Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2006).
Centocor seeks a ruling that the Joe antibodies are prior art to the patented subject-matter under Section 102(g)(2). Abbott has cross-moved for a ruling that the Joe antibodies are not prior art under either Section 102(f) or 102(g)(2).
As explained previously, scientists working on Abbott's IL-12 project discovered the antibodies known as Joe 7, 9, and 10 in late 1995 and early 1996 by screening a phage-display library for human antibodies that bind to IL-12. These antibodies were subsequently used to develop antibodies for IL-12 with desirable affinity and neutralizing properties.
The parties agree that three Abbott employees — Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee — came up with the idea of developing a human, neutralizing antibody to IL-12 during a meeting held on July 13, 1993. (Pearson Ex. 31, Abbott Interference Mot. 7, at 5). Centocor argues that this meeting constituted the moment when the Joe antibodies were conceived, and therefore invented for purposes of determining priority.
First, the 1993 brainstorming meeting did not constitute the conception of the Joe antibodies. At most, it was the conception of a generic idea of a group of human antibodies to IL-12 that would have pharmaceutical uses. Conception, for purposes of dating an invention, requires a "definite and permanent idea of an operative invention," such that "one of ordinary skill in the art could [reduce the invention to practice] without unduly extensive research or experimentation." Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed.Cir.1994); see also Singh v. Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2003) ("A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention."). When a generic concept requires further research or experimentation before it can be reduced to specific embodiments, it is the conception only of a genus — not of any species within that genus. Ganguly v. Sunagawa, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1970, 1972 (B.P.A.I.1987) ("[C]onception of a genus is not conception of a species.").
Conception of chemical compounds, including biological compounds such as antibody proteins, does not occur until the inventor "has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it." Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206 (Fed.Cir.1991).
Here, it is clear that the 1993 meeting merely marked the identification, by Abbott scientists, of the ability to bind to and neutralize IL-12 as a desirable biological property likely possessed by an as-of-then unknown class of antibodies. A July 30, 1993 memorandum memorializing the July 16 brainstorming meeting describes IL-12 and lists it among several "proposed additional targets for CAT collaboration." (Pearson Ex. 14, July 30 Memo., at ABT-IL12-00324514-15). It explains the understood biological functions of IL-12 and outlines why anti-IL-12 therapy might have medical uses. (Id.). There is no indication in the memorandum that the three scientists (or anyone else) had conceived of the structure of any particular IL-12 antibody. (Id.).
In sum, the evidence relied on by Centocor to prove conception of the Joe antibodies establishes that, as of July 1993, Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee had not conceived of any specific antibody to IL-12; they had simply announced human antibodies to IL-12 as a subject for further research. Such a "wish to know" does not establish conception. Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206. Thus, the record establishes what common sense dictates: that the identification
A second independent reason that the Joe antibodies are not "prior art" to the patents is that those antibodies were the work of joint inventors, not "another inventor." Centocor's argument to the contrary rests on the fact that the term "another," as used in the statute, means "any inventive entity other than the inventor," and that two inventive entities are separate as long as "not all inventors are the same." See Section by Section Analysis: Patent Law Amendments of 1984 (Oct. 1, 1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5827, 5834 (Oct. 1, 1984); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2136.04 (8th ed., July 2010 rev.) ("The fact that [the groups] have one or more inventors in common is immaterial."). Thus, it is possible that where a subset of a patent's named inventors independently developed one invention before the larger group invented the patented invention, the older work will be prior art against the newer. Centocor argues that because Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee invented the Joe antibodies before Abbott entered into research agreements with scientists at CAT and GI, those three Abbott scientists constituted a separate "inventive entity" from the larger entity named in the patent.
That position is consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 116, which permits inventors who work together to file jointly for a single patent. In 1984, that section was amended by the addition of a sentence, which provides:
35 U.S.C. § 116, ¶ 1; Pub.L. 98-622, Title I, § 104(a), 98 Stat. 3384 (Nov. 8, 1984). The broad reach of joint inventorship under Section 116 suggests that even if the Joe antibodies were invented at the 1993 meeting, as Centocor contends, that work would not be prior art to the patents, because the scientists at the meeting were joint inventors with the other scientists named in the patents.
Centocor nonetheless argues that Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee cannot be joint inventors because they constitute a separate inventive entity under the holdings of two cases: In re Land, 54 C.C.P.A. 806, 368 F.2d 866 (1966), and In re Bass, 59 C.C.P.A. 1342, 474 F.2d 1276 (1972). In Land, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the previous invention of an individual inventor could be prior art against the joint invention of that individual together with another inventor. 368 F.2d at 881. In Bass, the same court held "that the use of the prior invention of another ... under the circumstances of this case which include the disclosure of such invention in an issued patent, is available as `prior art' within the meaning of that term in § 103 by virtue of § 102(g)." 474 F.2d at 1286-87.
Two decisions of regional circuits have narrowed the implications of the holdings of Land and Bass in the context of analyzing priority of invention.
Similarly, in Shields v. Halliburton Co., 667 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir.1982), the Fifth Circuit distinguished Land from circumstances in which a sole inventor never seeks a patent on his first invention before contributing it to a later joint invention.
Shields suggests that the holding of Bass does not compel the conclusion that the alleged invention of the Joe antibodies in 1993 was prior art to the patented inventions. Even if invented in 1993, before the research agreement between Abbott and GI took effect, those antibodies were the unpatented, interim product of what was a single, ongoing, collaborative research effort. It is not necessary to decide now whether an earlier inventor must seek patent protection to become a separate inventive entity. It is enough to hold that, in this case, the initial work of three Abbott scientists was part of a larger collaborative effort that led to the patented inventions. The scientists did not form a separate inventive entity, and their work was not the prior invention of "another inventor" within the meaning of Section 102(g)(2).
As a final point, Centocor contends that if the Joe antibodies were prior art under 102(g)(2), they do not fall within Section 103(c)(1)'s safe harbor for inventions resulting from contractual research agreements. That section provides:
35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1). This section was added to Section 103 as one of two amendments apparently enacted to supersede Bass and to promote a policy of promoting collaborative research. See Pub.L. 98-622, Title I, § 103, 98 Stat. 3384 (Nov. 8, 1984) (adding Section 103(c)(1)); Pub.L. 108-453, § 2, 118 Stat. 3596 (Dec. 10, 2004) (adding Section 103(c)(2)). Centocor argues that the Joe antibodies do not fall within the safe-harbor provisions of Section 103 and that therefore Abbott cannot claim the benefits of the partial legislative reversal of Bass.
Once the legal theories put forward by Centocor have been dismissed, the undisputed facts in the record show that the Joe antibodies are not prior art to the claimed inventions under Section 102(g)(2). In July 1993, Abbott identified a high affinity antibody to IL-12 as a target for further research. (Pearson Ex. 14, July 30 Memo., at ABT-IL12-00324514-15). On August 25, 1993, Abbott entered into a "collaborative development program" with CAT aimed at isolating "human neutralizing antibodies to certain human antigens." (Oyloe Ex. 52, 1993 Agmt.). In March 1995, the companies agreed to target IL-12 and contracted with GI in that effort, leading to a partnership among the three companies that took effect July 1, 1995. (Oyloe Ex. 53, J. Salfeld Letter; Ex. 54, CAT-GI MTA; Ex. 55, RDMA; Oyloe Ex. 56, Anti-IL-12 Agmt.). Between September 1995 and January 1996, that collaborative effort yielded discoveries of antibodies to IL-12, the Joe antibodies. (Oyloe Ex. 50, Murphy Rpt. ¶¶ 103, 105-06). Further development based on those discoveries produced the inventions disclosed in the '128 and '485 patents. No evidence suggests that those patents misidentify the inventors involved in that process. That history shows a process of joint inventorship entirely consistent with Section 116, not a series of inventions by separate entities.
For substantially the same reasons, the Joe antibodies are not prior art under the non-derivation requirement of Section 102(f). "Although derivation and priority of invention are akin in that both focus on inventorship," the requirements of Section 102(f) differ from Section 102(g)(2): under Section 102(f), "the person attacking the patent must establish prior conception of the claimed subject matter [by an inventor other than the patentee] and communication of the conception [to the patentee]." Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed.Cir.1993) (emphasis added). Here, the only evidence on which a claim of derivation might be based is the same as that of Centocor's Section 102(g)(2) claim: that Drs. Salfeld, Tracey, and Banerjee invented the Joe antibodies while working as a separate inventive entity. (Oyloe Ex. 50, Murphy Rpt. ¶¶ 97-104). Because the work of those three Abbott employees did not constitute an invention by a separate inventive entity, Centocor cannot establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).
Because the undisputed record establishes that the Joe antibodies are not prior art to the patents, summary judgment as to that issue will be granted in favor of Abbott.
Centocor also seeks a ruling that its own inventions anticipated Abbott's patents under Section 102(g)(2). It contends, first, that all claims asserted against it are anticipated by ustekinumab and, in alternative, that the drug Stelara at least anticipates those claims encompassing pharmaceutical compositions of human IL-12 antibodies.
The parties agree that Ms. Giles-Komar recognized and appreciated that ustekinumab was a human neutralizing antibody to IL-12 no later than April 30, 1998. (Pearson Ex. 55, Giles-Komar Decl. ¶ 13). For purposes of this motion, the Court will therefore assign Centocor's invention the priority date of April 30, 1998.
Centocor contends that no evidence suggests that Abbott reduced to practice an antibody within the scope of the antibody claims before its presumptive priority date of March 25, 1999, when its provisional patent application was filed. In fact, Abbott offers evidence that it reduced to practice antibodies within the scope of the claims both before March 25, 1999, and before Centocor's asserted priority date of April 30, 1998. The BPAI itself concluded that the Joe antibodies, which are within the scope of some of the antibody claims, were reduced to practice beginning in 1995. (Oyloe Ex. 31, Priority Op. at 89, 98, 102). Centocor's own expert, Mr. Murphy, corroborates those invention dates in his report, stating that Joe 7 and Joe 10 were reduced to practice by September 19, 1995, and that Joe 9 was reduced to practice on or about January 15, 1996. (Oyloe Ex. 50, Murphy Rpt. ¶¶ 105-06, 121-22). Abbott's expert, Ms. Ellis, provides evidence that other antibodies within the scope of the claims were reduced to practice in 1996 and 1997. (Oyloe Ex. 118, Ex. C to Ellis Rpt.). This evidence is sufficient to establish a factual dispute as to whether Abbott can claim a priority date that is earlier than Centocor's priority date of April 30, 1998.
With respect to the composition claims, Centocor relies on the fact that one inventor named on those claims, Stuart Friedrich, became an employee of GI no earlier than August 1998 and therefore could not have contributed to Abbott's IL-12 research project before then. (Pearson Ex. 42, Friedrich Dep. Tr. at 13). Because "[a] person must contribute to the conception of the claimed invention to qualify as a joint inventor," Vanderbilt Univ. v. ICOS Corp., 601 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2010), Centocor asserts that the inclusion of Mr. Friedrich as a joint inventor in the patents proves that conception was not complete before August 1998.
The subsequent addition of Mr. Friedrich does not, however, preclude Abbott from proving an earlier invention date. The Federal Circuit has made clear that proof of priority to a genus claim requires
Additional evidence supports Abbott's assertion that it did in fact invent pharmaceutical compositions of antibodies to IL-12 earlier than April 30, 1998. (Oyloe Exs. 111-15). If that evidence sustains Abbott's claim to priority, but further evidence shows that Mr. Friedrich, after subsequently joining the research project, made no further contributions, it might suggest that Mr. Friedrich was misjoined as an inventor on the patents. See, e.g., Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1348-49 (Fed.Cir.1998). However, that possibility does not entitle Centocor to summary judgment on the issue of priority.
In short, because the parties dispute when Abbott reduced to practice inventions within the scope of the antibody and composition claims, summary judgment will be denied.
Evaluating an allegation of patent infringement requires a two-step analysis: "the court first determines, as a matter of law, the correct claim scope, and then the fact-finder compares the properly construed claim to the accused device to determine, as a matter of fact, whether all of the claim limitations are present, either literally or by a substantial equivalent, in the accused device." Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir.2001).
Here, Abbott asserts a theory of literal infringement. "Literal infringement exists if each of the limitations of the asserted claim(s) read on, that is, are found in, the accused device." Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Thus, for each asserted claim, the patentee must prove that every limitation of that claim is found in the allegedly infringement product. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Intern., 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2003); S. Bravo Systems, Inc. v. Containment Tech. Corp., 96 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1996) (requiring proof of infringement by a preponderance of the evidence).
This Court issued a claim construction order on May 5, 2011. Now, at the second step of the infringement analysis, summary judgment is appropriate only if undisputed facts show that Stelara either does or does not meet each limitation of a properly construed claim.
Centocor seeks a ruling that Stelara does not infringe any of the asserted claims.
The Court has construed "human antibody," to mean "an antibody that is derived from human DNA and not from the DNA of any non-human species." (May 5 Order, at 36). This interpretation is based on a definitional passage in the specification, the last sentence of which provides:
('128 patent col. 26-27). Reasoning that this sentence is characterized by language of exclusion, the Court concluded that "human antibody is defined in terms of derivation — it must have been derived from fully-human sequences, and antibodies that originated in other species are not encompassed by the invention." (May 5 Order, at 41). Thus, the Court reasoned, "the better construction of `human antibody' is one that explicitly limits the term to antibodies derived from human germline sequences...." (May 5 Order, at 41). On the other hand, the definition of "human antibody" adopted by the Court is not limited to antibodies that are encoded entirely by human germline DNA; rather, the Court explained, the term "broadly encompasses human germline sequences that have been altered or mutated in some way." (Id. at 40).
Centocor asserts that ustekinumab is not a "human antibody" within the meaning of this construction because the DNA that encodes the antibody is likely to contain nucleotide sequences that were inserted through N-nucleotide addition inside the B cell of a transgenic mouse.
Dr. Siegel's conclusion presupposes that, under the claim construction, DNA introduced through N-nucleotide addition is "DNA of [a] non-human species" within the meaning of the claim construction so long the process occurs inside a cell of a non-human organism. However, this premise does not find express support anywhere in the text of the specification. Nucleotides inserted by N-nucleotide addition are non-template nucleotides, meaning that they are not derived from the germline genomic sequence of any species. (Oyloe Ex. 60, Marks Supp. Rpt. ¶ 9). Whether ustekinumab is a "human antibody" therefore depends whether the term "DNA of any non-human species" includes nucleotides that are not part of the germline DNA of any species but that are assembled and inserted into a DNA sequence inside a cell of a non-human organism.
The Court's construction assumed that the "DNA" that is attributable to a species in this context is the germline DNA of that species. Two considerations make this assumption clear. First, the Court relied on specification language that provided that "human antibody" does not include antibodies for which "sequences derived from the germline of another mammalian species... have been grafted onto human framework sequences." ('128 Patent col. 26 ll. 55-67, col. 27 1-14). Second, the Court concluded that a proper construction of the term would limit it "to antibodies derived from human germline sequences." (May 5 Order, at 41). These considerations demonstrate that the adopted construction of "human antibodies" encompassed antibodies encoded by sequences derived from human germline sequences but excluding any non-human germline sequences. The articulation adopted in the Court's order — "an antibody that is derived from human DNA and not from the DNA of any non-human species" — is no different in meaning. Its reference to classes of DNA that are attributable to particular species is synonymous to a reference to the germline sequences of those species.
Under this construction, ustekinumab is a "human antibody" within the meaning of the '128 and '485 patents. The parties' experts, Dr. Marks and Dr. Siegel, agree that Stelara was created inside a transgenic mouse through the recombination of human antibody genes together with N-nucleotide additions at the junctions of the recombined sequences. (Marks Supp. Rpt. ¶¶ 35-39; Siegel Rebuttal Rpt. 23-28).
Centocor does not dispute that Stelara meets the remaining limitations of claims 29, 32 and 64 of the '128 patent and claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 15-19 and 24 of the '485 patent. However, it does offer evidence that ustekinumab does not meet a limitation of claim 30 requiring that the antibody be one that dissociates from IL-12 "with a k
Accordingly, summary judgment will granted in favor of Abbott on the issue of infringement as to claims 29, 32, and 64 of the '128 patent and claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 15-19, and 24 of the '485 patent, but denied with respect to the alleged infringement of claim 30 in the '128 patent. Because Centocor's motion relies on a finding that ustekinumab is not a "human antibody," it will be denied.
Centocor also seeks a ruling that Stelara does not infringe claims that include a limitation defined by a threshold K
The second dispute concerns the correct K
Accordingly, Centocor's motion for summary judgment as to infringement of the claims that include a limitation defined by a threshold K
Finally, Centocor also seeks summary judgment that Stelara does not infringe claim 61 of the '128 patent.
Claim 61 contains a limitation that the claimed antibody must "inhibit[] IL-12 binding to its receptor in an IL-12 receptor binding assay (RBA) with an IC
Claim 61 was addressed in the Markman proceedings. Centocor proposed a construction limiting the term "receptor binding assay" to assays that use human PHA blasts. In rejecting that interpretation, the Court explained that the plain meaning of the RBA limitation "encompass[es] antibodies tested for IL-12 efficacy using any standard assays known in the art at the time of the invention." (May 5 Order, at 30).
Abbott's evidence that ustekinumab infringes claim 61 is based on receptor binding assays conducted by Centocor scientist Dr. Yevgeniya Orlovsky. (Pearson Ex. 29, Marks Rpt. ¶ 60). Dr. Orlovsky tested whether ustekinumab inhibited IL-12 from binding to its β1 receptor subunit by fusing that subunit to a Fc immunoglobulin protein fragment that is not normally present in the IL-12 receptor.
Centocor argues that infringement cannot be proved in this way because the Orlovsky experiments only tested the ability of ustekinumab to bind to one of the two subparts of the IL-12 receptor (namely, β1). However, the claim construction adopted by this Court allows for proof of inhibition efficacy by "any standard assays known in the art at the time of the invention." Whether the methods used by Dr. Orlovsky were known to those skilled in the art at the time of invention is a factual question. Summary judgment of non-infringement is therefore appropriate only if undisputed evidence shows that his methodologies were not known and accepted in the field at the relevant times as ways to measure IC
The record precludes summary judgment on this issue. The parties have offered conflicting expert opinions concerning the probative value of Dr. Orlovsky's experiments. (Pearson Ex. 13, Siegel Rebuttal Rpt. ¶¶ 48-49; Oyloe Ex. 17, Marks Rpt. ¶¶ 60-61; Oyloe Ex. 98, Ralph Rpt. ¶¶ 12-21). Although Dr. Marks testified at his deposition that he was not certain whether a binding assay conducted with β 1 alone would be indicative of inhibiting effect on a receptor consisting of both β1 and β2, that testimony alone is not dispositive. (Pearson Ex. 16, Marks. Dep. Tr. at 53-55). Abbott offers other evidence suggesting that the results of those experiments may indicate that ustekinumab inhibits IL-12 from binding from its natural receptor with a particular IC
Accordingly, Centocor's motion for summary judgment on this issue will be denied.
Finally, Abbott moves to exclude from trial evidence and testimony relating to Major Adverse Cardiac Events ("MACE") possibly connected to the use of its drug, ABT-874. Both Abbott and Centocor observed a small number of MACE events during clinical trials of their anti-IL-12 antibodies. When they sought FDA approval to sell their drugs, both companies were asked to provide information relevant to MACE events and their drugs. At that point, Abbott withdrew its application for FDA approval. Centocor provided additional information relevant to potential MACE events connected to its product and continued to seek FDA approval. Stelara was subsequently approved for sale in the United States. For the following reasons,
The evidence Abbott seeks to exclude would show the relative incidence of MACE in clinical trials of Stelara and ABT-874. During the placebo-controlled period of the study, Stelara resulted in 1.23 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure, while ABT-874 resulted in 1.33 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure. Over the period of testing ending with the cutoff day required for regulatory approval, Stelara resulted in .61 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure, while ABT-874 resulted in .60 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure. During the cumulative period of clinical study, Stelara resulted in .44 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure, while ABT-874 resulted in .52 MACE events per 100 patient-years of exposure. Neither study was designed to evaluate any possible causal connection between the use of the drugs and MACE events, and scientists from both Abbott and Centocor have testified that they do not know of any scientific evidence that there is a connection. (Abbott Ex. B, Weinberg Rebuttal Rpt. ¶ 32; Abbott Ex. E, Valdes Dep. Tr. at 30; Abbott Ex. D, Yeilding Dep. Tr. at 39).
Evidence is generally admissible only if it is relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Fed.R.Evid. 401; Achille Bayart & Cie v. Crowe, 238 F.3d 44, 49 (1st Cir.2001). However, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, waste of time, or cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403. In this action, relevant evidence is limited to that which bears on the validity of the '128 and '485 patents, the likelihood that ustekinumab infringes those patents, or the appropriate measure of damages for the alleged infringement.
Centocor first suggests that evidence of MACE events is relevant to whether the patents have adequate written description for the patents' broad claims. However, written description analysis turns solely on what is claimed and what the disclosures of the specification would tell a person of skill in the art at the time of patent filing. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. The genus claimed by the patent encompasses IL-12 antibodies with particular binding properties. Centocor does not explain how the incidence of MACE events is probative as to whether the disclosed antibodies have those properties and are sufficiently diverse to represent the entire genus of antibodies with those properties. Thus, MACE evidence appears to be irrelevant to this issue.
Centocor's second basis for offering evidence of MACE events relates to damages. Abbott seeks monetary damages of lost profits and a reasonable royalty. Its claim to lost profits relates to sales of its product Humira, not ABT-874, while its royalty claims relate to Centocor's sale of Stelara. MACE events associated with ABT-874, which is contained in neither Humira nor Stelara, are not probative of damages due to lost sales of Humira. However, Abbott's claim to a reasonable royalty is different. It claims damages according to an "entire market value rule" theory premised on the proposition that "the technology of the patents-in-suit drives demand for Stelara." (Centocor Ex. 4, Davis Rpt. at 43). The entire market value rule "allows a patentee to assess damages based on the entire market value of the accused product where the patented feature creates the `basis for customer demand' or `substantially create[s] the value of the component parts.'" Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292,
Abbott argues that the MACE evidence cannot have any relevance because no evidence suggests a causal connection between the MACE events that occurred during the trials and ABT-874. That point, however, goes to the probative value of the evidence, rather than its relevance. Even assuming that no causal connection between the use of the drugs and cardiovascular risks can be shown, a difference (even a small one) in the number of MACE events reported in trials of two drugs could conceivably influence public perception of, and therefore market demand for, that drug.
Accordingly, evidence of MACE events will not be admitted insofar as it is offered to prove invalidity or non-infringement, but may be admitted with respect to the proper amount of damages to be awarded if infringement is established.
For the foregoing reasons,
35 U.S.C. § 146.
In its subsequent decision on the infringement appeal, the court found this issue precluded from its consideration:
Streck II, 665 F.3d at 1292. See also Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 335, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (endorsing the view that "an equitable determination can have collateral-estoppel effect in a subsequent legal action").
The relevance of Example 5 is suspect, as it appears to describe a test of the capacity of J695 to bind to IL-12 rather than a measurement of kinetic binding properties. ('128 Patent col. 117 l. 8). In any event, the Court finds that the K
It is also notable that Centocor's argument that the Joe antibodies were invented in 1993 is contradicted by the report of Mr. Murphy, which asserts that invention of the antibodies for purposes of 103(g)(2) occurred when they were reduced to practice in 1995 and 1996. (Oyloe Ex. 50, Murphy Rpt. ¶ 103, 105-06).
Claim 64 of the '128 patent is more complicated. It claims "[a] pharmaceutical composition comprising the antibody or an antigen binding portion thereof of claims 1, 16, 21, 27, 29, 41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier." ('128 patent col. 389 ll. 1-4). On its face, this claim appears extremely narrow, as it literally incorporates the limitations of eleven diverse claims in the conjunctive — in other words, all eleven limitations are included. However, Abbott asserts that Stelara is nonetheless within the scope of this claim because it is a pharmaceutical composition comprising the antibody of claim 29 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Centocor does not dispute that, if Stelara infringes claim 29, then it infringes claim 64. (Centocor Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts, at 7). The parties therefore appear to interpret claim 64 to encompass a pharmaceutical composition comprising an antibody of any one of the enumerated claims and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
In an action for breach of contract or other purely private dispute, the Court would not hesitate to accept the position of the parties notwithstanding its apparent deviation from the text. However, because the patent is a public document with legal implications for parties other than those before the Court in this action, the Court will accept the parties' understanding of scope of claim 64 solely for purposes of this action.
