Legal Opinion · Dissent

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

Decided March 3, 2003No. 01-1191, 01-1218Published

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

  1. The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
  2. The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
  3. In Re Mark A. Vaeck, Wipa Chungjatupornchai and Lee McIntoshCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
  4. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
  5. In re MayhewCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API