August 28, 2019
Authored and Edited by Yieyie Yang, Ph.D.; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Nos. 2018-1590, 2018-1629 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2019), the Federal Circuit applied the tangential relation exception to the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in its doctrine of equivalents analysis. The claims at issue recite alternative descriptions of the claimed protein: “(A) comprising the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:2, or (B) comprising an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleotide sequence that hybridizes with the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 under stringent conditions.” The Commission found that the protein encoded by a codon-randomized gene of the respondent’s strain was an equivalent of SEQ ID NO:2.
Initially, the Federal Circuit noted that the originally filed claim 1 recited a different (B) alternative, i.e., an amino acid sequence including deletion, substitution, insertion, or addition of one or several amino acids in SEQ ID NO:2. During prosecution, to overcome an anticipation rejection over an unrelated prior-art E. coli YfiK protein technically covered by the original (B) alternative, applicants amended (B) to recite an amino acid sequence encoded by a nucleotide sequence that hybridizes with the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 under stringent conditions. The court concluded that the objective rationale for the amendment was to limit the scope of (B) so that it no longer covered the unrelated YfiK prior-art protein and had nothing to do with choosing among several DNA sequences in the redundant genetic code corresponding to the protein at issue in the case (i.e., application of codon-randomization). Accordingly, the court affirmed the Commission’s finding of infringement under DOE.
Copyright © 2019 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
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 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.