Close Menu

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has overturned a $1.67 billion patent infringement jury verdict that Johnson & Johnson unit Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. won against Abbott Laboratories in a Texas federal court. The Feb. 23 unanimous ruling reversed 2009′s largest jury verdict, finding the patent at issue to be invalid based on the written-description requirement. An Eastern District of Texas jury in June 2009 found that Abbott had infringed four claims of a patent on an antibody developed jointly by Centocor and New York University. NYU granted Centocor an exclusive license under the 2006 patent. The verdict amount in the case, Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, was based on Abbott’s sales of the allegedly infringing product, the autoimmune drug Humira. The court’s final judgment boosted Centocor’s award to $1.85 billion with prejudgment interest. Humira and Centocor’s Remicade treat autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis by neutralizing a protein called tumor necrosis factor, an immune system protein that plays a role in inflammation. At the lower court, Abbott argued that it was the first to produce a fully human antibody. Centocor claimed that its predecessor application for the patent at issue included a written description of the human antibodies and so-called “enabling language” that would allow someone skilled in the technology to make and use the invention. The Federal Circuit ruling, authored by Judge Sharon Prost, reversed the lower court’s order, finding that the asserted claims of Centocor’s patent lacked the written description required by patent law. Based on that conclusion, the panel ruled that it did not need to address Abbott’s other arguments. Judge William Bryson and Senior Judge Raymond Clevenger III joined the ruling. Prost wrote that the pivotal issue in the case concerns whether Centocor’s patent “provides adequate written description for the claimed human variable regions” of the antibodies. “There is nothing in the [patent] specification that conveys to one of skill in the art that Centocor possessed fully-human antibodies or human variable regions that fall within the boundaries of the asserted claims,” she wrote. “At bottom, the asserted claims constitute a wish list of properties that a fully-human, therapeutic TNF-a anti-body should have: high affinity, neutralizing activity, and the ability to bind in the same place as the mouse A2 antibody. The specification at best describes a plan for making fully-human antibodies and then identifying those that satisfy the claim limitations.” Prost went on to state that “Centocor’s argument that an inventor need not physically make an invention to claim it misses the mark.” “Indeed, we have repeatedly indicated that the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice,” wrote Prost. “What it does demand is that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the claimed antibodies based on the specification’s disclosure. In other words, the specification must demonstrate constructive possession, and the [patent]‘s specification fails to do so.” Centocor is “disappointed by the decision,” said Rob Bazemore, Centocor’s president in a written statement. “We are considering whether to ask for reconsideration by the panel or by the court of appeals as a whole,” Bazemore stated. Centocor’s trial attorney, Dianne Elderkin, and other lawyers from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld on the case did not respond to requests for comment. Abbott’s lawyer, William Lee, a Boston litigator who serves as co-managing partner of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, referred questions to Abbott. In an e-mailed statement, Abbott spokeswoman Adelle Infante said the company is “very pleased with the appeals court’s decision. The evidence clearly showed that Abbott was first to invent a fully human anti-TNF antibody, HUMIRA.” The Federal Circuit ruling is significant partly because of the size of the jury verdict, but it leaves legal questions unanswered, said Cornell Law School assistant professor Oskar Liivak, who submitted an amicus brief in the case in support of Abbott’s position. Liivak’s brief argued that patent claims “cannot exceed the disclosed invention.” The Federal Circuit ruling doesn’t resolve ambiguities in the law relating to antibodies, Liivak said. Antibodies are the one area of the law where patent claims are “allowed to extend much further than [what] had been invented.” One question the Federal Circuit ruling didn’t tackle was: “If you invent and disclose specific variable regions, how broadly can you then claim [them] in your patent afterwards?,” Liivak said. There’s no other Federal Circuit case directly on point, he said. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit had two ways to resolve this case, Liivak said. The simpler, more conservative way was to rule that the patent specification didn’t show possession of any humanized antibodies, Liivak said. The more radical route would have been to say that Centocor’s patent specification “didn’t show that they had invented any other variable regions than the one single variable region than was disclosed in the specification,” Liivak said. Ultimately the FC chose that more conservative route because it wasn’t forced to rule on the larger question, Liivak said. “This is a very important issue,” Liivak said. “There’s huge amounts of money riding on these cases.” The ruling “suggests that patentees need to be very clear in their [patent] specifications to show that they are in possession of the invention,” said Michael Albert, chairman of the litigation group at Boston-based Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks. Albert isn’t involved in the case. “One thing that the court is doing is making clear that written description and enablement are distinct requirements [for patenting],” Albert said. “Here there was no dispute that the invention was enabled. The court separately held that there was this written description requirement.” This story originally appeared in The National Law Journal, a Corporate Counsel sibling publication.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

Legalweek(year) 2021

February 02, 2021 - July 14, 2021

Legalweek(year) will bring together thousands of legal professionals for a series of 5 innovative virtual legal events.


General Counsel Conference Midwest: SuperConference 2021

July 26, 2021 - July 27, 2021
Chicago, IL

GCC Midwest addresses today's legal issues facing companies by providing general counsel with insight and best practices.


General Counsel Summit (GCS) 2021

September 07, 2021 - September 08, 2021

General Counsel Summit is the premier event for in-house counsel, hosting esteemed legal minds from all sectors of the economy.


Local Government Attorney

Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States

The Gwinnett County Law Department is seeking an attorney with 9+ years of experience practicing employment law in a government setting. Mer...

Apply Now ›

Job Opportunity Legal Assistant/paralegal/full-Time

Marietta, Georgia, United States

Turner Ross Germain, LLC, is seeking a legal assistant/paralegal, with at least 3 years' experience, for long-term, full-time employment, f...

Apply Now ›

Associate Attorney

Walnut Creek, California, United States

Walnut Creek medical malpractice defense firm is seeking an associate with 2 to 5 years of litigation experience. Candidate must have strong...

Apply Now ›




View Announcement ›




View Announcement ›



Please to announce...

View Announcement ›

Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

Don't miss the crucial news and insights you need to make informed legal decisions. Join Corporate Counsel now!

Unlimited access to Corporate Counsel
Access to additional free ALM publications
1 free article* across the ALM subscription network every 30 days
Exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications
Join Corporate Counsel

Already have an account? Sign In