CAFC Denies Amgen Petition to Reconsider Enablement Test for Biotech Patents

By Logan Murr
June 25, 2021

“Enablement is required, even for generic claims to biological materials.” – CAFC

denied - https://depositphotos.com/4540592/stock-photo-denied-rubber-stamp.htmlOn June 21, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, and Amgen USA, Inc. (Amgen) in their case against Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, FKA Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi). Judge Lourie was joined by Judges Prost and Hughes in a separate opinion on the denial of the petition for panel rehearing.

A group of intellectual property professors; GlaxoSmithKline plc; and Biogen Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Corning Incorporated, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed amicus briefs.

Biotech Can’t Skirt Enablement

Amgen first argued that the CAFC “created a new test for enablement,” after the CAFC denied their claims on the basis that they did not provide sufficient enablement. However, the court was not convinced, stating “[w]hat is new today is not the law, but generic claims to biological materials that are not fully enabled. Enablement is required, even for generic claims to biological materials.” Specifically, Amgen and amici argued that requiring broad generic claims in biotechnology be supported by a disclosure that enables the full scope of claims will make it impossible to obtain the proper protection for inventions in the field of biotechnology.

Responding to this argument, the CAFC noted that enablement only precludes protection for inventions broader than are disclosed or enabled, and that if the genus claimed had in fact been invented by the time of filing, then it would have been fully enabled. Merely “[d]rawing a fence around subject matter without filling in the holes, is not inventing the genus.” Therefore, entitlement to a broad genus goes along with the requirement to disclose and enable a sufficient number of species to warrant such protection.

Amici argued that the CAFC recently adopted a “numbers-based standard” to evaluate enablement that asks not whether experimentation is undue but how long it would take to make and screen every species. However, the CAFC stated that this mischaracterizes the law, noting that the problem was not “simply that the claimed genus was numerous—it was that it was so broad, extending far beyond the examples and guidance provided.”

[[Advertisement]]

The Sky is Not Falling

Amgen and amici also argued that the CAFC’s decisions on enablement threatened innovation and will “devastate” the incentives to invest in drug discovery. However, here, too, the CAFC was unconvinced, stating “enablement is part of our law, and for good reason.” Contrary to the reasoning put forth in the petition for rehearing, the CAFC reasoned that one should not gain exclusivity over claimed subject matter without disclosing how to make and use it, because this would stifle invention by allowing inventors to claim what they have not invented. To buttress their argument that enablement will not stifle innovation, the CAFC cited to U.S. Patent No. 8,030,457, which Amgen received to protect the PCSK9 antibody that it invented and which it additionally purports to cover by the claim the court invalidated. “Thus,” the CAFC concluded, “the failure to obtain unsupported, unenabled claims has not deprived [Amgen] of patent protection on the fruits of its investment.”

The CAFC also addressed the concern that others may invent another species within the broad genus and undermine Amgen’s competitive advantage. To this, the CAFC said the doctrine of equivalents would provide sufficient protection.

A Seismic Shift is Not Warranted

Finally, Amgen argued that the CAFC should overrule case law that holds enablement is a question of law. The CAFC recognized that one may reasonably ask why enablement is a question of law when written description, which goes hand in hand with enablement, is not. After all, both of these relate to disclosure in the patent specification. However, in denying the petition for a rehearing, the CAFC held that they are bound by their precedent and declined “to recommend to the court that it go en banc to overrule longtime precedents simply because a party has questioned it, especially where the arguments that Amgen ma[de] provide[d] no compelling reason to introduce such a seismic shift.”

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: Rangizzz
Image ID: 4540592 

The Author

Logan Murr

Logan Murr Logan is a 2L at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law, where he serves as an Associate Editor of IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for IP. He is also the Director of Events for the Patent Law Forum on Campus. Before law school, Logan attended Susquehanna University where he studied Neuroscience. He plans to utilize his scientific and legal training to pursue a career in patent law.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 6 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Anon June 25, 2021 9:09 am

    Here is perhaps the most clear example of what TFCFM may mean by his oft lamented “only get a patent for what you actually invented.”

    But do not the explicit nature of genus/species and the type of art unit for which that phrase does carry a very particular meaning.

    This may be contrasted with other art units (art units that TFCFM has no meaningful understanding of), coupled with an observations made a (very) long time ago on this blog by a TechDirt/Slashdot type (P01R, as I recall) that actually differentiates computing innovation — as an art field — from the typical genus/species art fields.

    I have since boiled these points down to an easy to remember set of distinctions:
    math
    applied math
    MathS.

  2. Anon June 25, 2021 11:25 am

    But do not the explicit ==> But do NOTE the explicit

  3. Pro Say June 25, 2021 4:34 pm

    “the CAFC held that they are bound by their precedent”

    (pssst . . . except for 101 / eligibility, of course.)

    Oh, and we also decline to follow cabining Alice / Mayo as SCOTUS dictated.

  4. Anon June 26, 2021 9:12 am

    Pro Say,

    This is the type of ‘looseness’ that I think is a detriment to your positions.

    What exactly is this “Oh, and we also decline to follow cabining Alice / Mayo as SCOTUS dictated.“…?

    SCOTUS is the source of the problem.

    You seem to want to pretend otherwise, and that there is no Gordian Knot started by SCOTUS.

    Such really is a non-starter. We cannot aim for band-aids in trying to treat the underlying cause of illness.

  5. Pro Say June 26, 2021 9:36 am

    Anon,

    Really? You’re still confused about my position on this matter?

    I understand only too well (and have repeatedly stated such) that SCOTUS clearly exceeded their constitutional authority with their extra-judicial Mayo and Alice decisions.

    But, as I — and many others — have also repeatedly stated, had the CAFC merely followed SCOTUS’ imperative to tread lightly (by cabining Mayo / Alice as SCOTUS had intended), American innovation would not be in the mess that its in.

    Capiche?

  6. Anon June 26, 2021 10:50 am

    The admonition to “tread lightly” in a decision that itself does not cannot be said to be the “cabin” that you assert.

    First, that is not the meaning of the term “cabin;” and second, the limits – as in the decision itself – belie your assertion.

    A better example of “cabin” would be the Bilski decision that was explicit in stating that the Diehr decision cabined the earlier Benson and Flook decisions.

    Of course, the Supreme Court itself scrivened a Gordian Knot by attempting to later say that while Diehr was most on point and that Diehr was not being changed, that very case making such a pronouncement resurrected Flook in a way that flat out contradicts Diehr (and Bilski).

    You seek to blame the CAFC and they certainly are not doing worse than what the Supremes themselves have done.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website