As we reported earlier this year, Amgen filed a petition for rehearing en banc to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the panel in Amgen v. Sanofi improperly created a new and heightened test for enablement of genus claims with functional limitations.1 In its earlier decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law invalidating genus claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 and 8,859,741 that recite functional limitations covering Amgen’s cholesterol medication Repatha® as not enabled for the full scope of the claimed embodiments. Despite being joined by many amici arguing the significant ramifications of this decision for many biopharma companies, the Federal Circuit denied Amgen’s petition for rehearing en banc. Now, Amgen has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court reiterating the questions presented to the Federal Circuit. In its petition for certiorari, Amgen posed the following questions:
[Question 1:] Whether enablement is “a question of fact to be determined by the jury,” ... or “a question of law that [the court] review[s] without deference,” ... as the Federal Circuit holds.
[Question 2:] Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention ... or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments” without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial “ ‘time and effort,’ ” ...
Amgen argues that the Federal Circuit decision creates a new standard for enablement of genus claims.2 According to Amgen, the new test for enablement of genus claims reciting functional language is evaluated according to how much “time and effort” is required to make and test every embodiment so as “to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments,” thereby requiring the Applicant to identify every embodiment meeting the claimed function. Specifically, an Applicant claiming a genus reciting functional language would have to identify and make all possible variations of the invention to satisfy the heightened enablement standard. Amgen argues that the enablement requirement should not depend on the cumulative effort required to ferret out every conceivable implementation of the invention.
Amgen also argues that the Federal Circuit improperly invades the jury’s role, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wood v. Underhill3, Amgen argues that the court has long held that whether a patent satisfies that “enablement” requirement is “a question of fact to be determined by the jury.”
This particular case started in 2014, and Amgen previously sought rehearing en banc and filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court when the first Federal Circuit panel to hear this case remanded to the district court for further analysis. Both the request for rehearing en banc and the cert petition were denied at that time.
Cynthia Rothschild, PhD is a partner in the Winston-Salem, NC office, Andrew T. Serafini, PhD is a partner in the Seattle, WA office, and Christopher Thomas is an associate in the Washington, DC office of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.