[Question 1:] Whether the panel’s new enablement test for genus claims with functional limitations . . . conflicts with Supreme Court decisions . . . .
[Question 2:] Whether enablement is a question of fact, as the Supreme Court has held, or a question of law, as [the Federal Circuit] holds . . . .2
Amgen argues that the panel decision announces a new standard for enablement that stymies breakthrough inventions. 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.3 In other words, an Applicant claiming a genus reciting functional language would have to make, identify, and test all potential embodiments to satisfy the heightened enablement standard. Amgen argues that this new standard, in effect, would invalidate any genus claim reciting functional language, which is a common claiming strategy for biotechnology innovations.
Notably, Amgen argues that Sanofi failed to identify even one embodiment of the claimed genus that could not be quickly or easily made by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Amgen states that generating and testing the “millions” of potential embodiments was routine to one skilled in the art. Amgen went on to say that the patent’s written description “showed exactly how to make the claimed antibodies, every time.”4 Amgen asks that the Federal Circuit return to evaluating enablement by looking at whether undue experimentation would be required to practice particular embodiments, a standard that should require “concrete proof” that an embodiment is not enabled.5
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. Unless Amgen is successful in reversing the panel’s decision this time, claims to antibodies based on their function (e.g., binding a target and/or blocking a function) will continue to be at peril before the USPTO and courts. Claims to therapeutic antibodies would require structural features, such as sequences of CDRs, which are narrower than functional claims. Amgen is right—the stakes are high for biotechnology inventions.
Tina Williams McKeon is a partner in the Atlanta, GA 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.