Overview
On
Background and Issue Presented
Hemophilia is a rare blood clotting disorder characterized by an underlying malfunction in the coagulation cascade. A critical step in the cascade is the formation of a complex between activated factor IX (FIXa) and activated factor VIII (FVIIIa) which then goes on to activate factor X (FX). Hemophilia develops when this complex is unable to form, due in many cases to the development of self-antibodies that inhibit FVIIIa, thereby blocking the activation of FX. The disclosed and claimed invention in the '590 patent relates to antibodies against FIXa that take the place of FVIIIa and result in the activation of factor X by FIXa even in the absence of FVIIIa. Thus, rapid blood coagulation may be achieved in hemophiliacs with FVIIIa inhibitors by administering the claimed anti-FIXa antibodies.
Claim 1 of the '590 patent is illustrative.
- An isolated antibody or antibody fragment thereof that binds Factor IX or Factor IXa and increases the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa.
Baxalta filed suit against
The district court found that Hemlibra® did not infringe the claims of the '590 patent based on its claim construction that the terms "antibody" and "antibody fragment" excluded bispecific antibodies, such as emicizumab-kxwh.
Thus, the issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in its claim construction of these terms.
District Court's Construction of "Antibody" and "Antibody Fragment"
The parties disputed the meanings of these terms in the lower court. A typical antibody is shown below having two light chains (L1 and L2) and two heavy chains (H1 and H2). The tops of each arm of the "Y-shaped" structure provide the antigen binding regions.
Baxalta argued that the term "antibody" should broadly mean "a molecule having a specific amino acid sequence comprising two heavy chains (H chains) and two light chains (L chains)." On the other hand,
The district court admitted that both proposed constructions were acceptable in the art but favored
In reaching its claim construction, the district court relied on the prosecution record of the '560 patent, noting that in response to an enablement rejection, Baxalta amended the term "antibody derivative" to "antibody fragment," thereby disclaiming antibody derivatives that included "bispecific antibodies..."
The district court then went on to also construe "antibody fragments" as "a fragment of an antibody which partially or completely lacks the constant region; the term 'antibody fragment' excludes bispecific antibodies."
The parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court's final claim construction and Baxalta appealed, contending that the lower court's claims constructions were wrong.
The Federal Circuit's Decision
The Federal Circuit agreed with Baxalta, holding that the lower court's claim constructions were erroneous. The district court's decision of non-infringement was vacated and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings based on the correct construction of the disputed terms of "antibody" and "antibody fragment."
The court first pointed to the axiom that "[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history," citing to Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
To conduct its analysis, the court examined the language of the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution record.
With respect to the claims, the Federal Circuit first noted in connection with claim 1 that "nothing in the plain language of claim 1 limits the term 'antibody' to a specific antibody consisting of two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains or an antibody that only binds the antigen that induced its synthesis or very similar antigens." The court also inspected the dependent claims, which define the "antibodies or antibody fragments" of claim 1 as a "chimeric antibody, a humanized antibody,...[and] a bispecific antibody." The court noted each of these sub-classes of antibodies fall outside of the scope of the district court's construction of "antibody" and that adopting the lower court's construction would render the dependent claims reciting these terms as meaningless and invalid. The court stated that "[t]he plain language of these dependent claims weighs heavily in favor of adopting Baxalta's broader claim construction."
Regarding the specification, the Federal Circuit held that the specification when read as a whole also supported Baxalta's broader claim construction.
With respect to the prosecution record, the Federal Circuit held that it did not confirm or support the district court's claim construction. In particular, the court did not agree that Baxalta's amendment which changed the term "antibody derivative" to "antibody fragment" to address an enablement rejection somehow amounted to a disclaimer of antibody derivatives, including bispecifics. The Federal Circuit reasoned that there were "no clear statements in the prosecution history regarding what scope, if any, was given up when the patentee substituted 'antibody fragment' for 'antibody derivative.'" Citing to precedent in 3M Innovative Properties Col. V.
Based on its review of the plain language of the claims, the specification read as a whole, and the prosecution record, the Federal Circuit held that "the district court erred in selecting the narrower construction [of the term "antibody"], which is inconsistent with the written description and the plain language of the claims." The court also rejected the lower court's construction of "antibody fragment" based on the district court's narrow read of certain excerpts of the specification, in favor of simply relying on the "plain and ordinary meaning in light of the written description as a whole." Thus, the court construed "antibody fragment" as "a portion of an antibody."
Takeaways:
- When drafting patent applications, consider avoiding definitions which are overly narrow, particularly where the state of the art might recognize more than one appropriate definition (as the district court noted is the case for the term "antibody").
- Consider avoiding definitions of well-known technical terms altogether. This may allow more flexibility with claim construction. In other words, consider avoiding narrowing the meaning of well-known terms that already have a clear "ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history."
- When developing claim constructions of one or more terms, avoid constructions that would render dependent claims meaningless and/or invalid.
Originally published by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
MA 02210
Tel: 617646 8000
Fax: 617646 8646
E-mail: www.wolfgreenfield.com
URL: www.wolfgreenfield.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source