June 23, 2024

Tullio Corradini

Trusted Legal Source

Laundry Lists of Components are Insufficient Written Description for a Particular Combination

Laundry Lists of Components are Insufficient Written Description for a Particular Combination

by Dennis Crouch

The pending Supreme Court situation of Amgen v. Sanofi focuses on a broadly claimed genus and asks no matter whether the disclosure is adequately comprehensive.  The Federal Circuit’s the latest UMN v. Gilead is the flip-facet.  Regents of the U. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2021-2168, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023).  UNM’s unique disclosure is particularly broad with “laundry lists” of parts that could be incorporated in numerous combinations  while the later on-included claim is directed to a extra certain sub-genus blend.  The courtroom appeared in vain for some indicator in the specification as to why the claimed combination is significant or notably recommended.  Here, they disclosed a significant forest, but failed to disclose the tree that turned out to be beneficial.

Likely forward, a patentee could possibly stay away from this distinct problem with some patent lawyer tricks.  Somewhat than listing all prospective components for every practical group and normally suggesting their mix, an early-phase patentee could have its AI assistant give a hypothetical case in point of just about every probable blend, a single at a time.  That scenario would supply obvious ipsis verbis disclosure and thus more very likely survive a penned description obstacle.

= = =

Most U.S. patents assert priority to at the very least 1 prior patent software filing.  The early filing day allows stay away from would-be intervening and invalidating prior artwork.  But, the ideal to precedence is not automated. In addition to the official paperwork, the initial software have to adequately disclose the creation as claimed in the later patent.  Sufficiency of disclosure is typically judged less than 35 U.S.C. §112(a) with the doctrines of enablement and created description.

A patent that improperly statements priority is not mechanically invalid.  Instead, the priority submitting day is rendered void and then we consider whether or not the  creation was still novel and nonobvious as-of the later on filing date.  This setup also will allow these disclosure problems to be regarded through Inter Partes Review  (IPR) proceedings that are statutorily minimal to anticipation and obviousness grounds.

 

In Regents of the U. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2021-2168, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit confronted the challenge of whether the  written description observed in UMN’s priority applications supported the statements in the ensuing US8815830 patent.  Listed here, the ‘830 patent covers the drug sofosbuvir that has Food and drug administration acceptance for Hep-C remedy.  Declare 1 does not only cover sofosbuvir, but as an alternative an full genus of molecules that healthy the normal composition demonstrated above and in which useful teams R1 – R7 are additional described inside the assert.  For instance, “R3 is hydroxy … R5 is an amino acid …”

UMN’s preliminary patent software was a provisional filed back again in 2004, followed by a PCT software in 2005, adopted by a non-provisional software in 2007 and last but not least by a further non-provisional application in 2013 that led to the ‘830 patent. In 2010, a Gilead patent software printed (“Sofia”) that discloses the claimed creation.  In this set up, UMN’s can disregard Sofia so prolonged as it properly claimed precedence to at minimum a person of these earlier purposes.  But, if precedence fails then the ‘830 patent is expected.

Through the IPR, the Board sided with Gilead — concluding that the priority filings lacked ample written description and thus that the statements were being invalid as predicted. On charm, the Federal Circuit has affirmed in an opinion by Decide Lourie and joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll.

The patent act requires a “written description of the invention” be submitted in the kind of a patent specification.  “Judicial gloss” points out this necessity has proving that the inventor “possessed the creation as claimed” at the time of filing.  Prepared description concerns most normally occur in circumstances like this just one wherever the patented claims ended up not found in the first submitting documents but alternatively were being included afterwards through prosecution.

The courts have been specifically tough on patentees in search of to declare coverage for a massive genus of compounds.  In that situation, it is generally a complicated endeavor for the patentee to pretty much enumerate all operable compounds covered by the promises.  That stage of disclosure is not needed, but the patentee must explain “the outer limitations of the genus” as very well as “either a agent variety of customers of the genus or structural options prevalent to the members of the genus, in possibly circumstance with more than enough precision that a applicable artisan can visualize or acknowledge the users of the genus.”  The courtroom will also consider “blaze marks in just the disclosure that guidebook attention to the claimed species or subgenus.” Slip Op., citing In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990 (CCPA 1967).

Ipsis verbis: I outlined above that prepared description issues are most usually successful in conditions wherever the declare scope has improved during prosecution.  Promises that are located phrase-for-word in the initial application (ipsis verbis) can however are unsuccessful the penned description requirement, but that consequence is a great deal considerably less most likely.  Here, UMN argued that the original provisional filing disclosed the eventual assert in ipsis verbis type — pointing to a mix of features of provisional statements 1, 2, 13, 21, 22, 45, and 47 that collectively forming a considerable term-for-phrase recitation of assert 1 in the ‘830 patent.  On attractiveness while the Federal Circuit observed that mix of this disparate established of promises needed a little bit much too considerably cleverness.

Adhering to this maze-like route, each and every action giving various option paths, is not a written description of what may well have been explained if just about every of the optional steps had been set forth as the only solution. This argument calls to thoughts what Yogi Berra, the Yankee catcher, was described to have explained: “when one comes to a fork in the road, consider it.” That remark was noteworthy since of its indeterminacy, its lack of way. Similarly, below, all those optional choices do not determine the meant final result that is assert 1 of the ’830 patent.

Moreover, Minnesota’s argument is akin to that rejected in Fujikawa, wherever the applicant “persist[ed] in arguing that its proposed count [wa]s disclosed ipsis verbis in Wattanasin’s application.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the court described in Fujikawa: “just because a moiety is outlined as one doable option for a single place does not necessarily mean there is ipsis verbis support for each and every species or sub-genus that chooses that moiety. Were this the scenario, a ‘laundry list’ disclosure of each doable moiety for every possible placement would represent a published description of each and every species in the genus. This are not able to be simply because such a disclosure would not ‘reasonably lead’ individuals experienced in the artwork to any certain species.”

Slip Op.  I would argue that the Federal Circuit erred on this point. The UMN provisional application’s Declare 1 is directed to the identical typical molecule, but with a lot broader definitions for each of the useful team. Then, the subsequent provisional dependent statements (2, 13, 21, 22, 45, and 47) refine the scope of these functional teams in a manner that is similar to that inevitably claimed in the ‘380 patent.  Here, every single of these dependent statements are defined as being dependent on any of the prior claims.  Therefore, provisional dependent declare 47  seemingly consists of the identical restrictions identified in the ‘830 patent assert 1. Yes, it is a minor little bit challenging, but so is chemistry.

It is not crystal clear that my quibble would adjust the result of the situation because ipsis verbis help does not essentially final result in sufficient created description.

= = =

The absence of ipsis verbis help is not fatal, so prolonged as the first filings adequately demonstrate possession of the complete scope of the claimed invention.  In circumstances involving quite broad disclosure (a forest), the courts seem cautiously for indications that for disclosure of the particular trees in fact claimed.  But, extended lists of parts are not adequate. Fairly, the strategies – the “blaze marks” — should be distinct.  In this article, the PTAB observed the patentee experienced unsuccessful to present that roadmap and, on charm, the Federal Circuit affirmed on significant evidence.

[T]he structures [disclosed in the provisional] are so considerable and diversified that [they] encompasses a substantially more substantial genus than that claimed in the ’830 patent, are not sufficiently typical to that of declare 1 of the ’830 patent to provide created description support.

Slip Op.

UMN made other arguments that had been all rejected:

  1. The PTAB should have designed a believability perseverance or other point locating relating to expert testimony.  On charm though the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB is not demanded to tackle each and every and every  facet rivalry inside its determination.
  2. The PTAB previously issued a determination that is facially inconsistent with this situation, and as a result is acting in an arbitrary and capricious way.  On attractiveness, the court located no issue considering that the Board is not sure by prior panels.
  3. As a state establishment, UMN is immune from IPR issues.  UMN acknowledged that this argument was earlier made a decision by the Federal Circuit.  Further, UMN has presently misplaced a scenario on this argument and so is not just bound by precedent but also collateral estoppel.

Cancellation affirmed.