"Applying precedent from both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit's predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), the appellate court found that Seagen's disclosure on the original patent application claiming its antibody-drug conjugate cancer treatment was too broad to give the later-filed patent-at-issue the original application's priority date, and also required undue experimentation to discover effective drug combinations."
"The drug moiety containing the cytotoxic cell-killing drug is released after the cancer cell is targeted by the antibody, improving selectivity in treatment. The continuation application resulting in the '039 patent, which encompasses AstraZeneca's Enhertu cancer treatment, explicitly discloses a "Gly/Phe-only tetrapeptide," a four-amino-acid-long unit where each amino acid is either glycine or phenylalanine, a protein not disclosed in the 2004 application."
Seagen's continuation '039 patent claims a Gly/Phe-only tetrapeptide linker for an antibody-drug conjugate and includes AstraZeneca's Enhertu. The 2004 parent application broadly disclosed many peptide options but did not specifically disclose the Gly/Phe-only tetrapeptide subgenus. The Federal Circuit found the 2004 disclosure too broad to support the later-filed '039 patent's priority date and concluded that practicing the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of JMOL and held the '039 claims lacked both written description support and enablement under prevailing precedent.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]