Prometheus Labs. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Mayo Clinic) (Fed. Cir. 2010)
This case is one of several pending Federal Circuit appeals that are questioning whether medical diagnostic and treatment methods are the proper subject of patent protection.
The claims asserted by Prometheus are directed toward a method of “optimizing therapeutic efficacy” by first administering an active drug (6-thioguanine) to a subject and then using the subject’s metabolite blood-level to adjust future doses of the drug. (U.S. Patents 6,355,623 and 6,680,302). Thus, most of the claims are centered around three ordered-steps of:
administering the drug to the subject;
determining the amount of drug in the subject’s blood; and
re-calibrating the drug dosage based on step-2.
A broader claim (claim 46 of the ‘632 patent) eliminates the administering step of claim 1 above.
The district court found the claims invalid as lacking patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed — holding that the steps of “administering a drug” and “determining the level of 6-thioguanine” were both sufficiently transformative of “a particular article into a different state or thing.” That Federal Circut decision was based on the court’s machine-or-transformation test that was subsequently discredited by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos (2010). In the wake of its Bilski decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s Prometheus decision and remanded for a new opinion. Seeing this as a potential watershed case, Mayo immediately requested that the Federal Circuit hear the case en banc.
Briefing by October 1: The Federal Circuit has apparently denied the en banc request and has moved-forward with a rapid briefing schedule: By October 1, 2010, both parties are scheduled to submit 20–page briefs “addressing the effect of the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision on the disposition of this case. No additional briefing or oral argument is contemplated at this time.” The scheduling order was signed by the court clerk Jan Horbaly.
Judges in Charge: The scheduling order suggests that the remand will be taken as a supplement to the original decision. A quirk of that original decision is that the three-member panel included two judges who are not on the Federal Circuit (Chief Judge Paul Michel (Ret.) and E.D. Texas District Court Judge Ron Clark). The third member of the panel is Judge Lourie. Federal Circuit rules indicate that Judge Clark can retain on the panel on remand, but would not be part of any en banc hearing.
Related cases include Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen Idec (method of determining an immunization schedule) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (gene patents).
The Federal Circuit offers some clues to its post-Bilski patentable-subject-matter jurisprudence, but leaves that fight for another day. Instead, the court held the claims anticipated by explicitly ignoring novel claim elements.
* * * * *
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
King’s patent claims a method of increasing oral bioavailability of the muscle relaxant metaxalone by putting metaxalone in food eaten by the patient. Claim 21 includes a step of “informing the patient that the administration [of the drug with food] results in an increase [in absorption]. This step likely has two benefits: (1) increasing patient compliance with the drug regimen and (2) taking advantage of any placebo effect that may exist. The drug metaxalone itself was already a known muscle relaxant well prior to King’s 2001 application date.
Patenting Methods of Treatment: The district court held claim 21 invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test from Bilski. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court analysis — noting that when examined “as a whole”, the claim requires treatment and “methods of treatments ‘are always transformative when a defined group of drugs is administered to the body to ameliorate the effects of an undesired condition.’” (quoting Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Serv., 581 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. granted and vacated, 78 U.S.L.W. 3254 (U.S. June 29, 2010)).
Although the appellate panel rejected the lower court’s Section 101 analysis, it stopped short of providing any positive position on the patentability of medical treatment methods — presumably saving that battle for the pending remands of Prometheus and Classen.
Instead, the appellate court held that a Section 101 decision was not necessary because the claims of interest are anticipated under Section 102.
Ignoring Non-Patentable Elements: Here, the novelty question is interesting because the “informing” step was not specifically identified in the prior art. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that claiming a step of “informing someone about the existence of an inherent property” of a method cannot render the claim patentable. “[I]n light of our holding that the method of taking metaxalone with food to increase the drug’s bioavailability, as recited in claim 1, is not patentable, it readily follows that claim 21, which recites the same method with the sole additional step of informing the patient about this increase in bioavailability, is not patentable.”
In its decision, the court ties its case to the precedential foundation of “printed matter” cases that have barred the patentability of known products by the inclusion of printed matter describing the product.
In some ways, this decision may be seen as reviving the suggestion found in the now vacated 2007 In re Comiskeydecision. There, the court suggested that, during nonobviousness analysis, any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious.
Panel: Judges Bryson, Gajarsa, and Prost. Authored by Judge Gajarsa.
Abbott Labs v. Sandoz (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) 07-1400.pdf
The Federal Circuit had developed two opposing lines of cases for interpreting the scope of a product-by-process claim. Acting en banc sua sponte sub secretum, the appellate body sided with the Atlantic Thermoplatics line in holding that infringement of a product-by-process claim requires practicing the claimed process steps. This decision makes Judge Newman’s 1991 Scripps decision no longer good law. (Note, the en banc portion is only Section III.A.2).
[T]his court now restates that “process terms in product-by-process claims serve as limitations in determining infringement.”
The holding here explicitly focuses on claim construction for the purposes of infringement. Based on my first-pass, it appears that the court has left undecided whether this rule applies for validity purposes. I.e., can a product-by-process claim now cover a well known product made through a new process?
This is a very interesting decision and more analysis will be forthcoming.
Perhaps the most interesting portion of the decision is Judge Newman’s 39 page dissent.
Based on this Decision, generic Omnicef will continue to be available.
On summary judgment, the district court held that Rexam did not infringe Crown’s patent beverage can-top patent. The lower court also found that that Crown did not infringe Rexam’s beverage can “necking” patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed both rulings.
The Doctrine of Equivalents: Over the past two decades, the doctrine of equivalents been pushed out of the usual infringement discussion. Part of the doctrine’s downgrade is due to restricted application due to prosecution history estoppel (Festo) and tighter doctrine (Warner-Jenkinson). Perhaps equally important in the decline of the DOE has been the rise of claim construction as the primary variable of patent litigation. Rather than arguing for infringement as an equivalent, applicants are instead arguing for broad construction of the claim terms. Finally, patent drafters are – on average – better today than they were twenty years ago and spend more energy on considering how to draft claims that capture literal infringement. In a 2007 paper, Professors Lemley and Allison found something similar – that since the late 1990’s (even before Festo), that “equivalents claims usually failed, most often on summary judgment.” Their paper title – “Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents” – overstates its case. The DOE is sometimes valuable.
Function-Way-Result Test: There are at least two alternate tests for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The function-way-result test considers “on a limitation by limitation basis” whether “the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result as each claim limitation of the patented product.”
Summary Judgment on DOE: Here, the issue was not so much the law of the DOE, but rather the requirement for summary judgment that there be no remaining material issue of fact. Crown’s patent claims an “annular reinforcing bead,” while Rexam’s product uses a reinforcing fold. The lower court found those different enough to avoid infringement under the DOE. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed – finding at least one unresolved material issue of fact that precluded summary judgment. DOE requires expert testimony to step through the function-way-result test. And, here, the patentee’s expert stepped through each element and his testimony had not been completely indicted or even refuted.
Because Crown provided evidence in support of its position that the annular reinforcing bead of claim 14 of the ‘826 patent had only one function, and because we must resolve any reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, we conclude that there is a material issue of fact regarding the function of the claimed bead. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.
This decision by Judge Moore is in line with the court’s 2008 Voda case which was affirmed after parsing expert testimony to ensure that the elements had been properly proven. (In Voda, the court used the alternative “insubstantial difference” test.)
Unmarked Sales by Licensee: In a scenario reminiscent of the recent Quanta v. LG case, Rexam licensed its patents to Belvac to make “neckers” used to stretch out the top of the can bodies. Under the license, Belvac was required “to notify its customers that they would require a separate license from Rexam to perform the smooth die necking method” that is claimed in Rexam’s patents. The license did not require Belvac to mark the machines that it sold. And, in fact, Belvac did not mark them with the Rexam patent number. Crown then used the machine to make over onehundred billion cans.
Marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a): The district court found that this past infringement was not actionable because Crown was not on notice of the patent. That decision seemingly follows from 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Under that provision, a patentee who does not properly mark a patented article “is not entitled to damages for infringement prior to actual notice.” (quoting CAFC decision).
Marking of Method Claims: Rexam’s trick here was to assert only method claims. On its face, Section 287 applies to “any patented article,” and Federal Circuit precedent has clearly stated that the marking requirement does not apply when only method claims are asserted. With palpable regret, Judge Moore writes:
“The law is clear that the notice provisions of § 287 do not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method. Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., 704 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In Hanson, 718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983)—we held that 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) did not apply where the patentee only asserted the method claims of a patent which included both method and apparatus claims. Hanson is factually identical to this case, and we are therefore bound by the rule of Hanson.”
Thus the patentee is free to claim damages back six years under Section 286 even without marking or providing actual notice. This decision thus provides an additional reason to include method claims in a patent application. Now, it would be improper to conclude that there is no reason to mark products that perform method claims. In the 1993 American Medical Systems case, the Federal Circuit ruled that marking would be required if “both apparatus and method claims” were asserted and there is a “tangible item to mark.” In this case, the patent claimed both a method and apparatus, but Rexam sued only on the method claims.
Rep. Rick Boucher’s Bill to excuse infringement of patents covering tax planning methods now has 40 co-sponsors. However, its prospects for becoming law are still slim – only one of the co-sponsors is a member of the House IP Subcommittee which must approve the bill.
The proposal copies the language of the “medical practitioner’s performance of a medical activity” exclusion found under 35 USC 287(c). (Known as the Ganske compromise). Under the proposed bill, unauthorized use of a patented tax planning method by a taxpayer or tax practitioner would not be considered infringement.
“With respect to the use by a taxpayer or a tax practitioner of a tax planning method that constitutes an infringement under subsection (a) or (b) of section 271, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the taxpayer, the tax practitioner, or any related professional organization with respect to such tax planning method.”
A tax planning method is defined as any “plan, strategy, technique, or structure that is designed to reduce, minimize, or defer, or has, when implemented, the effect of reducing, minimizing or deferring, a taxpayer’s tax liability.” The proposal is careful to exclude “tax preparation software or other tools used solely to perform or model mathematical calculations or prepare tax or information returns.” This language is potentially too loose — as most tax software does much more than perform math and prepare the return.
Apotex filed an ANDA to begin making a generic version of Daiichi’s patented ear infection medication method – FLOXIN Otic. Daiichi sued and won a bench trial. On appeal, the CAFC reversed — finding the patented invention obvious.
Level of Skill: The nonobvousness doctrine requires an examination of what would be available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). That inquiry is premised on a definition of the mythical PHOSITA. The general theory is that highly educated and trained PHOSITA know more and tend to think more inventions are obvious. On the other hand, a PHOSITA with little education or training would have more difficulty in making connections and finding obviousness.
The 1983 Orthopedic Equipment decision outlines factors for determining a PHOSITA – including education level of the inventor.
Here, the CAFC found that the lower court erred by picking a pediatrician as the PHOSITA in creation of compounds to treat ear infections without damaging a patient’s hearing. Rather, the skill level should be an otologist who is engaged in developing pharmaceutical formulations. The court primarily based its PHOSITA Skill Level on the inventors’ skill level and the skill level of their peers (which, almost by definition will be the same).
Obviousness: Based on the high level of skill in the art, the CAFC concluded that an otologist would have found the patented method obvious.
Reversed — Patented Invention is Obvious
DDC Comment: Although the education level of the inventor appears to be relevant to determining the PHOSITA skill level, there are a few reasons why that data point should be excluded from the list of factors. The common major mistake here is to search for a PHOSITA capable of making the invention rather than simply searching for the level of a skilled worker in the area. The PHOSITA skill level inquiry is not a search for what it takes to be a successful inventor. Rather, the PHOSITA is merely a skilled worker. The inventor’s biographical information may be indicative of a skill level for invention, but that is not the PHOSITA inquiry.
Under 35 USC 103(a), patentability of an invention “shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.” Of course, the process of inventing is intimately tied-in with the inventor’s skill and education level. In essence, use of the inventor’s biographical information in determing the PHOSITA skill level allows the court to ask whether the invention would have been obvious to someone standing in the shoes of the inventor. That methodology nothing more than a backdoor approach to asking whether any steps that the inventor took included non-obvous leaps — a legally impermissible question.
This case was originally decided in July 2007, but was recently republished as a precedential decision. The OrangeBookBlog covered the original release.