Federal Circuit Follows Through on Amgen Enablement Analysis in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech
January 5, 2024
Authored and Edited by Reinaldo Franqui Machin, Ph.D.; Jeffrey M. Jacobstein; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Following the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision last summer,[1] the Federal Circuit has affirmed the invalidity of yet another functionally-defined antibody patent for lack of enablement in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 81 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (mem.).
Baxalta owns U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 (’590 patent), directed to antibodies that bind a particular enzyme to increase procoagulant activity as a form of hemophilia treatment. The ’590 patent disclosed 11 antibody sequences having the claimed properties and explained how a skilled artisan could use known hybridoma bioengineering techniques to obtain additional antibodies falling within the scope of the claims.
The Federal Circuit characterized the facts in Baxalta as “materially indistinguishable from those in Amgen” because the patents at issue in both cases potentially encompassed millions of antibodies that bind to a particular target and exert a particular functional effect. Id. at 1366. In addition, the patents in both cases provided limited exemplary antibodies, coupled with a roadmap for a skilled artisan to run experiments in search of additional antibodies falling within the functionally-defined claim scope. The Court noted that, as in Amgen, nothing in the ’590 patent explained why the disclosed antibody sequences resulted in increased procoagulant activity while other screened antibodies did not, or otherwise allowed for extrapolation to identify additional antibodies falling within the claims.
The Court also rejected Baxalta’s analogy to In re Wands,[2] which likewise disclosed hybridoma methods for producing antibodies that bind a target and claimed methods of using those antibodies for hepatitis detection. While agreeing that Amgen did not disturb Wands’ “undue experimentation” standard, the Court relied on its previous factual distinction between the Wands and Amgen cases,[3] indicating that functionally defined claims similar to those in Amgen will face a similar fate under 35 USC § 112.
In light of this opinion, patent applicants should exercise care when claiming classes of compounds or biologics based on their function. Patentees may also wish to reassess their portfolios or those of third parties as this ruling could further affect the strength of functionally-claimed assets.
[1] Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023).
[2] In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
[3] Citing Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, 987 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.