The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting...
-
Upload
bruce-flowers -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting...
![Page 1: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Written Description RequirementWhy It’s a Good Thing (Seriously)AIPLA Spring MeetingThursday, May 12, 2011
Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy General Patent CounselEli Lilly and Company
![Page 2: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ariad v. Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2010)ALMOST EIGHT YEARS OF LITIGATION!
June 25, 2002 U.S. Patent 6,410,516 granted (‘516 patent)
June 25, 2002 Ariad filed suit against Lilly
April 2006 Jury Trial
August 2006 Bench Trial
April 3, 2009 CAFC panel held the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description
Dec 7, 2009 en banc CAFC oral arguments
March 22, 2010 en banc CAFC held the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
2
![Page 3: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
35 U.S.C. §112, para 1
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
3
![Page 4: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Policy Rationale
“It is part of the quid pro quo of a patent; one describes an invention, and, if the law’s other requirements are met, one obtains a patent…A description of the claimed invention allows the … PTO to examine applications effectively; courts to understand the invention, determine compliance with the statute, and to construe the claims; and the public to understand and improve upon the invention and to avoid the claimed boundaries of the patentee’s exclusive rights.” (emphasis added)
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
4
![Page 5: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Prelude
• Ruschig (“blaze marks”)
• Late 80’s-early 90’s PTO rejections (Heightened standard of patentability for biotech!)
• Amgen (“when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated. “)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
5
![Page 6: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The Prelude• Fiers (“An adequate written description of a DNA
requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it; what is required is a description of the DNA itself.”)
• UC v. Lilly (aka the Most Important Case of All Time) (rat proinsulin DNA species insufficient to describe human or broader genus; representative # of species)
• Enzo (deposits can suffice; abs discussed in dictum; real WD question avoided)
• University of Rochester (on all fours; “mechanism of action” claims not OK)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
6
![Page 7: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
WD is not limited to priority issue
“Claims define and circumscribe, the written description discloses and teaches … the statute does not say "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention for purposes of determining priority." And although the issue arises primarily in cases involving priority, Congress has not so limited the statute, and neither will we...”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1346 and 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
7
![Page 8: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Genus Claims using a Functional Limitation to Define
Boundaries“[T]he specification must demonstrate that the
applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus
…merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituted the genus”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
8
![Page 9: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Not a heightened standard for biotech
“We also reject the characterization, cited by Ariad, of the court's written description doctrine as a "super enablement" standard for chemical and biotechnology inventions. The doctrine never created a heightened requirement to provide a nucleotide-by-nucleotide recitation of the entire genus of claimed genetic material; it has always expressly permitted the disclosure of structural features common to the members of the genus.” (emphasis added)
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
9
![Page 10: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Representative Number of Species
-What Does It Mean?
“We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus.” (emphasis added)
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) referring to Regents of the Univ of Cal v. Eli Lilly 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
10
![Page 11: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Former Test
“[T]he test for suffiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Ralson Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
11
![Page 12: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The New Test
• “Possession as show in the disclosure is a more complete formulation…
• [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
• Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
12
![Page 13: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The specification of the ‘516 patent hypothesizes three classes of molecules potentially capable of reducing NF-kB activity:
• Specific inhibitors• Dominantly interfering molecules, and
• Decoy Molecules
Specific Inhibitors – “The only example of a specific inhibitor given in the specification is I-kB…In the context of this invention, a vague functional description and an invitation for further research does not constitute written disclosure of a specific inhibitor.”
Dominantly Interfering molecules – “The specification provides no example molecules of this class.”
Decoy molecules – “a mere mention of a desired outcome”
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
13
![Page 14: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Battles of the Present and Future
What if Ariad had simply stated in the specification that a “specific inhibitor” could be a monoclonal antibody to NF-kB – having
made no antibody?
Of predicted Top Ten drugs in 2014, six are antibodies (two more are insulin variants).
-Reuters
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
14
![Page 15: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Noelle v. Lederman355 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• Claim to antibody binding CD40L invalid because human antigen not described
• Would have granted the claim if the antigen had been described
• The antigen is not the claimed invention!
• Dictum
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
15
![Page 16: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Cartoon Understanding
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
16
No describable relationship between structure of antigen and the antibody
which binds that antigen
![Page 17: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Closer to Scientific Reality
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
17
![Page 18: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Hypothetical Functional Claim:A monoclonal antibody that binds human NF-kB.
Under Ariad v. Lilly it should not grant:
1. Merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituted the genus
2. No disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus.”
3. Does not show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
18
![Page 19: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Dicta of earlier cases should not be raised to the level of a holding“The PTO would find compliance with 112, paragraph 1, for a claim to
an isolated antibody capable of binding to antigen X, notwithstanding the functional definition of the antibody, in light of the well defined structural characteristics for the five classes of antibody, the functional characteristics of antibody binding, and the fact that the antibody technology is well developed and mature.
Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
“Therefore, based on our past precedent, as long as an applicant has disclosed a "fully characterized antigen," either by its structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, or by depositing the protein in a public depository, the applicant can then claim an antibody by its binding affinity to that described antigen.”
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [referring to Enzo]
There is no universal antibody structure allowing correlation of antibody structure with antigen binding function as would be needed for adequate written description of “Antibody that binds protein X” claim.
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
19
![Page 20: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
20
An epidemic of antibody patents granting
without antibodies
K. Hashimoto and T. Aida. Antibody patenting without antibodies: a global trend. Nature Biotechnology 26:1341, 2008
a. 27% of human gene patents include antibody claimsb. 94% of the main antibody claims cover all antibodies or all
mAbsc. 45% patents with ab claim not supported by experimental
antibody production
![Page 21: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
21
The hazard of allowing functional claims
unsupported by adequate written
description
![Page 22: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
22
![Page 23: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
23
Functional Limitations Only1. An isolated recombinant anti-TNF-α antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof,
said antibody comprising a human constant region, wherein said antibody or antigen binding fragment
(i) competitively inhibits binding of A2 (ATCC Accession No. PTA-7045) to human TNF-α, and
(ii) binds to a neutralizing epitope of human TNF-α. in vivo with an affinity of at least 1 x108 liter/mole, measured as an association constant (Ka), as determined by Scatchard analysis.
2. The antibody or antigen-binding fragment of claim 1, wherein the antibody or antigen- binding fragment comprises a human constant region and a human variable region.
3. The antibody or antigen-binding fragment of claim 1, which comprises at least one human light chain and at least one human heavy chain.
![Page 24: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
24
Centocor v. Abbott97 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
• Right result
• Failed WD because no description of fully human high affinity, A2-specific antibody to TNF-α
• Antigen known in the art
• Centocor argued that a functional language of the claim provided the WD
• “[S]pecification does not provide a single antibody that
satisfies the claim limitations.”
![Page 25: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
25
Centocor v. Abbott97 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2011)• “There is nothing in the specification that conveys to one of skill in the art that Centocor possessed fully- human antibodies or human variable regions that fall within the boundaries of the asserted claims.”
• Claims are a wish list
• Then all hell breaks loose
• A la Enzo and Noelle, cites PTO WD guidelines with reverence
![Page 26: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
26
Centocor v. Abbott97 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2011)“While our precedent suggests that written description for certain antibody claims can be satisfied by disclosing a well-characterized antigen, that reasoning applies to disclosure of newly characterized antigens where creation of the claimed antibodies is routine. Here, both the human TNF-a protein and antibodies to that protein were known in the literature…Claiming antibodies with specific properties, e.g., an antibody that binds to human TNF-a with A2 specificity, can result in a claim that does not meet written description even if the human TNF-a protein is disclosed because antibodies with those properties have not been adequately described.”
![Page 27: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
12May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
27
Centocor v. Abbott97 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir.2011)•How did we get here?
•Antibodies are Y-shaped
•Therefore, there is a structure-function relationship
•NOOOOOOOOOO!
•The part of the antibody responsible for binding is completely unpredictable=no structure-function relationship!
•Whether or not the ab is easily generated (PHYSICALLY, not mentally) is irrelevant
![Page 28: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
12 May 2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
28
Benefits of Strong Enforcement of Written Description Requirement•More Predictable Freedom to Operate
• Unencumbered by claims covering all solutions to a problem yet to be solved
• Absence of functional claims to molecules without a disclosed structure-function correlation • Returns incentive to develop actual invention
•Fairness reigns
•Longer PTE if shorter prosecution
•Let the predictability of the science drive the
processa
![Page 29: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
12May2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
29
Thus, although written description and enablement often rise and fall together, requiring a written description of the invention plays a vital role in curtailing claims that do not require undue experimentation to make and use, and thus satisfy enablement, but that have not been invented, and thus cannot be described.”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
![Page 30: The Written Description Requirement Why It’s a Good Thing (Seriously) AIPLA Spring Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 Amy E. Hamilton Vice President/Deputy.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56649efd5503460f94c10fe1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
12May2011 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2011 Eli Lilly and Company
30
Amy E. Hamilton (317) 276-3169
[email protected] Lilly and CompanyLilly Corporate CenterIndianapolis, IN 46285