Blog April 26, 2022
Legal Alert: Amgen v. Sanofi
- Person title
- Person title
On May 18, the Supreme Court sided with Sanofi in Amgen v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. ____ (2023), a dispute concerning broad functional genus claims for antibodies. The ruling affirmed the Federal Circuit’s reading of the Patent Act’s “enablement” requirement, a requirement that states that a patent must enable someone who is reasonably skilled in the art to use or make the patented invention without undue experimentation.
The Court held that under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) “Amgen has failed to enable all that it has claimed, even allowing for a reasonable degree of experimentation.” 598 U.S. ____, at *15. The Court noted that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 and 8,859,741 at issue covered “the entire genus” of antibodies that (1) “bind to specific amino acid residues on PCSK9,” and (2) “block PCSK9 from binding to [LDL receptors].” Id. at *5. The unanimous opinion states, “If a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class.” Id. at *13. After analyzing the specification and testimony presented, the Court disagreed with Amgen, which argued that the broad claims are enabled because “scientists can make and use every undisclosed but functional antibody if they simply follow the company’s ‘roadmap’ or its proposal for ‘conservative substitution.’” Id. at *16.
The opinion can be found here. For more information, Principals Nicole Williams and Martina Hufnal will present on the decision during an upcoming webinar on June 6.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Article April 19, 2022
Fish Principals Author The Licensing Journal Article "Patent Licensing"
Blog July 30, 2021
Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?
Blog September 27, 2018
Four Fish Post-Grant Attorneys Named 2018 Life Science Stars by LMG Life Sciences
Article July 28, 2017
The Recorder: Practical Aftermath of 'TC Heartland': Book Your Flights for the Coasts
Blog May 16, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Blog May 12, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog April 18, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog April 10, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Article February 17, 2023
Principals Patrick Darno and Peter Fasse Author "Patent Strategies for Protecting Bioinformatics Inventions" for IAM
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog January 17, 2023
Biosimilars 2022 Year in Review
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog