Judge Saylor construed claims in Bayer Healthcare’s Patent No. 5,654,407 directed to pharmaceuticals to combat autoimmune diseases (specifically, an antibody that binds to human tumor necrosis factor alpha) in a suit between Bayer and accused infringer Abbot. That decision led to the dismissal of the complaint as the parties agreed that under the claim construction Abbot did not infringe. Claims not related to the infringement were dismissed without prejudice, and are subject to revival should the claim construction be reversed on appeal. The construction of the claim term which led to the dismissal, "human monoclonal antibodies," is specific to the technology of the disputed patent.
One non-dispositive section of the claim construction order may be of general interest. In that section Judge Saylor orders that a specific term be narrowly construed in order to remain faithful to the specification. Since the patent did not disclose a specific antibody with certain characteristics, or how to make such an antibody, the claims would be construed to exclude that specific antibody.
This is a variant of the common genus-species dispute. The specification clearly discloses one type of x, but not other types of x, so a claim to x will only cover the disclosed type. The law favoring this approach, which has been expanding in recent years, is not without its flaws. If I invent a manual transmission and I claim “a transmission,” does that mean that someone who develops an automatic transmission should escape infringement because I didn’t disclose that embodiment in my specification?
(D. Mass. Oct. 20, 2010 - Claim Construction Order; Jan. 11, 2011 - Entry of Final Judgment)
Abbot Labs. v. Bayer Heathcare, LLC, 09-40002-FDS
Bayer Heathcare, LLC v. Abbot Labs., 09-40061-FDS
Comments