Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.

973 F. Supp. 39, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16957, 1997 WL 440691
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedJuly 7, 1997
DocketCivil Action 95-10496-RGS
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 973 F. Supp. 39 (Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 39, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16957, 1997 WL 440691 (D. Mass. 1997).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON AM-GEN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM 9 OF THE ‘702 PATENT

STEARNS, District Judge.

Biogen brought suit alleging among other wrongs that Amgen’s product Neupogen® infringes claim 9 of U.S. Patent 4,874,702 (the “ ‘702 patent”). 1 Amgen struck back with a counterclaim attacking the validity of claim 9. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Amgen maintains that an abstract published by Glen Horn and Dr. Robert Wells in April of 1979 (“Horn & Wells 1979”) anticipated the filing of the application for the ‘702 patent by more than a year. Biogen contends that there is a material dispute of fact whether or not Horn & Wells 1979 would have enabled one skilled in the art to replicate the invention disclosed in claim 9 without undue experimentation.

*41 BACKGROUND

The ‘702 patent emanated from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 921,803, which claims its earliest priority from British Application 8028983, filed on September 8, 1980, by two Belgian scientists, Walter Fiers and Erik Remaut. Biogen is the assignee of all rights under the ‘702 patent. The ‘702 patent discloses a method of inducing the production of human proteins in non-human “host” cells through the use of recombinant DNA. Claim 9 of the ‘702 patent discloses a technique for preparing a plasmid vector, pPLa23, a cloning tool that can be used to transfer genetic information from one organism into another. 2 Specifically Claim 9 of the ‘702 patent claims

[a] recombinant DNA molecule comprising a vector according to Claim 1 and 2, and further comprising in one of said endonuclease recognition sites a DNA sequence coding for a eukaryotic, prokaryotic or viral protein, polypeptide, enzyme, hormone or antigen.

Claim 1 claims

[a] plasmid vector comprising at least one DNA sequence comprising the leftward promoter and operator derived from bacteriophage X, Pl Ol, said DNA sequence further comprising at least one endonuclease recognition site located less than 300 basepairs downstream from Pl Ol and located between Pl Ol and any sequences of X DNA downstream of the Hae III site at 73.1% of bacteriophage X in said DNA sequence.

Claim 2 claims: “[t]he vector of claim 1, having no active ero gene and no active N gene.” 3

On March 1, 1979, Glen Horn, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, and his mentor, Dr. Robert Wells, published an abstract entitled “Cloning and Characterization of a 360 B.P. DNA Fragment Containing Ol of Phage X”, Federation Proceedings Abstracts, Vol. 38, No. 3, at 298. 4 Horn & Wells 1979 describes the successful preparation of a plasmid vector, pRW601, which for present purposes is assumed to be identical to the vector disclosed by Fiers and Remaut in the ‘702 patent. 5

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when, based upon the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and [where] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 6 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Gaskell v. Harvard Co-op. Society, 3 F.3d 495, 497 (1st. Cir.1993). A dispute of fact is only genuine if there is sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable *42 jury to resolve the point in the nonmoving party’s favor. NASCO, Inc. v. Public Storage, Inc., 29 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir.1994). All reasonable inferences must be indulged in favor of the nonmoving party. Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir.1988).

ANTICIPATION

An invention is not novel and is therefore unpatentable if the invention was “anticipated.” See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 (Fed.Cir.1985). Anticipation of an invention is assumed if the invention was “described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, ... more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 7 To establish “anticipation” under § 102(b), the proponent must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that all of the elements and limitations of the claim are “expressly or inherently described” within a single prior art reference and can therefore be reproduced by one skilled in the art without “undue experimentation.” 8 See Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., 864 F.Supp. 429, 434 (D.N.J.1994), aff'd in part and vacated in part without op., 68 F.3d 487 (Fed.Cir.1995). See also Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1036 (Fed.Cir.1987). “Extrinsic evidence may be considered to explain, but not to expand on, the meaning of an anticipatory reference. Specifically, the [c]ourt may look to extrinsic evidence to learn how the person of ordinary skill would interpret an anticipatory reference.” Ciba-Geigy, 864 F.Supp. at 436 (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

Does Horn & Wells 1979 Enable One Skilled in the Art to Reproduce pRW601 Without Undue Experimentation?

One Skilled in the AH

Biogen maintains that Horn & Wells 1979 did not anticipate claim 9 of the ‘702 patent because it would not have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce pRW601 without undue experimentation. Biogen argues that Horn & Wells 1979 is an abstract, not a recipe, and thus lacks the critical information necessary to guide a skilled practitioner working in a 1979 molecular biology laboratory.

The first task is to determine the 1979 genus of one of ordinary skill in the art of plasmid vector preparation and the recombinant DNA technique of promoting expression. In Custom Accessories v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, 807 F.2d 955 (Fed.Cir.1986), the Federal Circuit taught that

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.
450 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Massachusetts, 2006)
United States Filter Corp. v. Ionics, Inc.
68 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Massachusetts, 1999)
Helifix Ltd. v. Block-Lok, Ltd.
26 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.
18 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
973 F. Supp. 39, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16957, 1997 WL 440691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biogen-inc-v-amgen-inc-mad-1997.