Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1DissentClevenger, Circuit Judge
I join my colleagues’ thorough opinion in all respects save one, albeit significant, exception. Because the claims lack meaningful limitations on the structure of the erythropoietin-producing cells, I cannot *1359agree that the district court should have abstained from inquiring fully whether the claims were suspect under the enablement and written description provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
As described by the specifications of the patents in suit, Amgen in 1984 cloned and sequenced the DNA encoding human er-ythropoietin (EPO). Amgen then showed that by introducing the cloned EPO DNA (linked…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- In Re Mark A. Vaeck, Wipa Chungjatupornchai and Lee McIntoshCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
- In re MayhewCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976