Priority document can inherently support subject matter first disclosed in later application
| October 27, 2016
Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG
September 20, 2016
Before Reyna, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by Reyna
Summary:
In a case arising out of an interference, validity of the patent in question turned on the question of whether structural features of a protein, which were newly added in the U.S. application, were inherently supported by the priority document. Here, it was found that the priority document did inherently support the claimed protein, and any structural features thereof, even if it did not disclose the specific claimed structural features. This is because there was only one protein that could possibly be described by the priority document.
Details:
Abbott is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915, which claims priority to German applications P39 15 072 and P29 22 089. The ‘915 patent discloses a protein called TBP-II, which neutralizes TNF-α, a key protein in immunological diseases. The key claim is as follows:
1. A purified and isolated TNFα-binding protein which has a molecular weight of about 42,000 daltons and has at the N terminus the amino acid sequence
Xaa Thr Pro Tyr Ala Pro Glu Pro Gly Set Thr Cys Arg Leu Arg Glu
where Xaa is hydrogen, a phenylalanine residue (Phe) or the amino acid sequences Ala Phe, Val Ala Phe, Gln Val Ala Phe, Ala Gln Val Ala Phe, Pro Ala Gln Val Ala Phe or Leu Pro Ala Gln Val Ala Phe.
Meanwhile, the German priority documents to which the ‘915 patent claims priority do not disclose the complete N-terminus sequence. These Germans priority documents disclosed a partial N-terminus sequence, as well as how the protein is obtained from its biological source, and several physical properties of the protein.
This case arises out of an interference between Abbott’s ‘915 patent and Yeda’s application in 1996. In 2000, the Board assigned Abbott the filing date of the ‘915 patent, not the date of the German priority applications. The Board concluded that the patent was invalidated by an intervening prior art reference (Engelmann). Engelmann disclosed the TBP-II protein and distinguished it from a similar protein, TBP-I. In 2008, Abbott appealed to district court, which indicated that one of the German priority document inherently discloses the TBP-II protein, and sufficiently supports the ‘915 patent. In 2010, the Board held that the other German priority document sufficiently discloses the TBP-II protein. Yeda then appealed to district court, which agreed with the Board, and then appealed to the CAFC.
Since Engelmann would be invalidating prior art, the question of validity of the ‘915 patent turns on whether the German priority documents provide written description support. Yeda first argued that the Board applied the wrong standard. Specifically, Yeda argued that for the priority document to support the ‘915 claims, the skilled artisan would have to understand that the partial sequence of the priority document includes the amino acids recited in the ‘915 claim. On the other hand, Abbott argued that the priority document only needs to sufficiently describe the TBP-II protein itself, and the partial sequence disclosure can be coupled with other characteristics.
The CAFC agreed with Abbott and held that the German priority document inherently supports the ‘915 claims. Citing to Kennecott v. Kyocera, 835 F.2d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the CAFC indicated that when a “specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as an adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.” It was not disputed that TBP-II is the only protein with the partial sequence and characteristics described in the priority document. The CAFC distinguished over two cases cited by Yeda (Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and In re Wallach, 378 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), indicating that unlike in those cases, here, it is undisputed that the invention of the earlier application is exactly the same as the invention of the later patent. Thus, the priority document sufficiently supports the claims reciting the full N-terminal sequence.
Yeda then argued that the prosecution history precludes reliance on inherent disclosure. Specifically, Yeda argued that in “the context of priority determinations, the allegedly inherent limitation cannot be material to the patentability of the invention,” relying on Hitzeman v. Rutter, 243 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Yeda argued that since Abbott relied on the amino acids in question to distinguish over Engelmann, they are material to patentability. In prosecution, the Examiner relied on cited art showing a protein with the same source, weight and function as that claimed. In response, Abbott pointed to Engelmann to show that TBP-I and TBP-II are different. Abbott also relied on Engelmann to show that TBP-II has five different amino acids than TBP-I, and that these were included in the claimed sequence. However, three out of the five TBP-II-unique amino acids disclosed in Engelmann were in fact also disclosed in the priority document. Thus, the sequence of the priority document alone was sufficient to distinguish over the art on its own. Therefore, Yeda’s argument fails.
Lastly, Yeda argued that the district court was incorrect in holding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. However, the CAFC again reiterated that the priority document disclosed nine of the 15 amino acids of the claimed N-terminus sequence and various biological characteristics. Furthermore, it was undisputed that no other known protein besides TBP-II has this structure and characteristics. Thus, the CAFC concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Take away
In many cases, adding a new disclosure to a US application, beyond what is disclosed in a priority application, can result in a breaking of the chain of priority. But here, because the priority document inherently disclosed the subject matter first disclosed in the US application—and only that subject matter—the claims had written description support as of the priority date. However, the outcome would have likely been different if the description of the protein in the priority document was later found to correspond multiple proteins, such as stereoisomers having different functions.
Abbott was saved by the fact that they disclosed not only the partial sequence of the protein, but also how it is obtained from its biological source, and several physical properties of the protein. Thus, in emerging technologies, it is best to try to claim the subject matter as completely as possible to insulate the applicant from written description problems in the future, and to provide the flexibility to claim the subject matter in terms newly added in a later application.
A Distinction Without A Difference
| March 21, 2016
Ulf Bamberg, Peter Kummer, Ilona Stiburek v. Jodi A. Dalvey, Nabil F. Nasser
March 9, 2016
Before Moore, Hughes and Stoll. Opinion by Hughes.
Summary:
The CAFC upheld the Board’s decision that the Bamberg claims were correctly interpreted in light of the Dalvey patents from which they were copied, and functional limitations were not improperly imported.
The CAFC upheld that, in light of the claim interpretation, the Bamberg specification failed to provide adequate written description.
The CAFC found that the Board did not err in denying Bamberg’s motion to amend the claim set due to a lack of claim chart.
Written Description
| August 20, 2014
ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc.
August 6, 2014
Panel: Taranto, Bryson and Hughes. Opinion by Taranto
Summary:
ScriptPro sued Innovation Associates, Inc, alleging infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601. Innovation Associates counterclaimed on various grounds, including invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Shortly after suit filed, Innovation Associates initiated an inter partes reexamination of the ’601 patent at the PTO, and the district court stayed proceedings in this case to await the PTO’s determination.
The PTO completed its reexamination of the ’601 patent. It confirmed amended claims 1 and 2 (amended in ways not relevant to this appeal). It confirmed claim 4, formerly a dependent claim, as rewritten to be an independent claim, but not otherwise amended. And it confirmed claim 8 without amendment. The amendments are not relevant to the issues on appeal.
Proceedings in the infringement suit resumed.
The district court granted summary judgment for Innovation Associates, holding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The district court rested its holding on a single conclusion—that the specification describes a machine containing “sensors,” whereas the claims at issue do not claim a machine having “sensors.”
ScriptPro appealed.
The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity on the ground that the patent’s specification does not describe the subject matter of the asserted claims, which do not require sensors. This is the only issue on appeal.
The district court agreed with Innovation Associates that the specification indisputably limits the invention to a collating unit that uses sensors to determine whether a particular holding area is full when selecting a holding area for storage of a prescription container.
The district court concluded “no reasonable jury could find that the inventors were in possession of a collating unit that operated without sensors.”
The district court decision is reversed.
Tags: abstract > claims as originally filed > specification > written description
CAFC reminds applicants to be wary of functionally defined genus claims
| July 22, 2014
AbbVie Deutschland GMBH & CO., KG et al., v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.
July 1, 2014
Panel: Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Opinion by Lourie. Concurring opinion by O’Malley.
Summary
Functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Functionally defined claims can meet the written description requirement if a reasonable structure-function correlation is established, whether by the inventor as described in the specification or known in the art at the time of the filing date.
Nothing Lost but Nothing Gained: Generic Producer Evades Infringement but Fails to Invalidate Patent under §112.
| April 3, 2014
Alcon Research Ltd., v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
March 18, 2014.
Before Newman, Lourie and Bryson. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary:
The CAFC reversed the District Court’s judgment that Alcon’s patents lacked enabling disclosure and sufficient written description as Barr had failed to demonstrate that some experimentation was required, let alone undue experimentation. Barr’s allegations that the claims were “too broad,” the specification was “too limited,” and the art was “too unpredictable,” was not sufficient without evidence to support that undue experimentation was required in order to practice the patented method.
The CAFC, however, affirmed the District Court’s judgment of non-infringement since Alcon had failed to prove that the polyethoxylated castor oil (“PECO)” in Barr’s product was present in a “chemically-stabilizing amount.”
The CAFC denied Barr’s judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and Rule 59(e) (alter or amend a judgment) motions on non-infringement for the two patents that were omitted from the pretrial order and not litigated.
Instruction from PTO on Software Composition Claims
| August 28, 2013
Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007962 (PTAB, 2013)
The Patent Office rarely designates decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as being “precedential,” but when it does, practitioners take note. The Patent Office’s designation last week of Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007692 as falling in that category will be of particular interest to those handling software patent applications.
Read More/続きを読む
Amending to exclude a species via a negative limitation may violate the written description requirement
| August 7, 2013
In re Bimeda Research & Development Limited
July 25, 2013
Panel: Rader, Clevenger, Prost. Opinion by Clevenger. Concurrence by Rader.
Summary:
The court held a negative limitation to exclude a genus does not provide 112, first paragraph written description support to claim a negative limitation that excludes a species, which species was never mentioned in the application.
Tags: genus > negative limitation > species > written description
CAFC Draws a Line in the Sand as to Adding “Boundary” Lines; PTO recants earlier design practice
| April 3, 2013
In re Owens
March 26, 2013
Panel: Prost, Moore and Wallach. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
Although a practice previously endorsed by the USPTO, the CAFC now holds that the addition of a “boundary” line to a design application constitutes the addition of new matter. Since the parent application gave no indication of one portion of the design being separable from the remainder, the CAFC held that there was no “possession” of the later modification in the original application.
Tags: design > design patents > new matter > possession > written description
When should incorporation by reference language be taken care of?
| July 11, 2012
Hollmer v. Harari
June 7, 2012
Panel: Prost, Mayer, O’Malley. Opinion by Prost
Summary
During the interference proceedings, Harari relied on the disclosure of 07/337,579 (‘579 application) which had been originally incorporated by the earliest 3rd great grandparent application 07/337,566 (‘566 application) of the subject application 09/310,880 (‘880 application). The ‘566 application included the disputed incorporation statement and had been abandoned. Two intervening applications copied the same statement and had been patented. The subject application (‘880 application) included the copy of the statement, but Harari corrected the incorporation statement by preliminary amendment which, according to Hollmer, was new matter because it would newly introduce the disclosure of ‘579 application. CAFC decided for Harari by applying the relaxed “reasonable examiner” standard (Harari I, 602 F.3d 1348). However, Harari was not allowed to claim the benefit of the filing date of the ‘566 application because CAFC found that the intervening applications in the chain leading back to the earlier ‘566 application did not comply with the written description requirement due to the ambiguous incorporation statement by applying the strict “person of ordinary skill” standard.
本件は、米国特有の”incorporation by reference”プラクティスに関するものである。インターフェアレンス手続において、Harariは最先の出願(566出願)が”incorporation by reference”によって引用した米国出願(579出願)の開示内容に依存した。566出願は不十分な”incorporation by reference”の記述を含んでいたがそのまま放棄された。566出願の出願日の利益を主張する出願がその後5代に渡って続き、全ての出願は当該不十分な”incorporation by reference”の記述をコピーしていた。Harariは5代目の本願(880出願)を予備補正して”incorporation by reference”の記述を訂正したが、2代目と3代目の中間の出願はそのような訂正を経ずに特許になってしまっていた。本願に関する予備補正が新規事項の追加になるか否かの争いについて、CAFCは、ゆるやかな「審査官の観点」の基準を適用して予備補正が適切であると判断した。一方、本願が特許法第120条の利益を享受して最先の出願日に遡るためには全ての中間の出願が” written description requirement”の要件を満たす必要がある。この要件が不十分な”incorporation by reference”によって妨げられるか否かの争いについて、CAFCは、より厳しい「当業者の観点」の基準を適用して第120条の利益を認めなかった。
[実務上の指針] 最先の出願日に遡るためには、その間にある全ての中間の出願を補正して適切な”incorporation by reference”の記述を含むようにしておくことが必要。
Tags: §120 > Incorporation by reference > written description
