Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.
655 F.3d 1291
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- District court dismissed Genetics' §291 interference suit for lack of interference in fact between Genetics' ’112 patent and Novartis' ’620/’447 patents.
- ’112 patent issued 1989; term extended under §156 to 2010; claims 1,5,9,10 relate to truncated Factor VIII lacking B domain.
- Novartis owns ’620 and ’447 patents; both claim truncated Factor VIII retaining a3 region and vWF binding.
- District court construed disputed claim language; held §156 extension applies to patent term as a whole, not claim-by-claim.
- This appeal concerns appellate jurisdiction after expiration and whether any asserted claim pairs interfere in fact under §291.
- Two-way test governs interference inquiry, requiring both sides’ claims to anticipate/ render obvious the other.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction after patent expiration | Expiring patent does not remove jurisdiction | Albert extends to expired patents, divesting jurisdiction | Jurisdiction exists despite expiration |
| District court jurisdiction to decide §291 interference | §156 extends to all claims globally—covers ReFacto® | §156 applies to individual claims | District court had jurisdiction to decide interference over asserted claims. |
| Interference in fact between ’112 and ’620 claims | ’112 deletions subsume ’620 deletions; two-way test satisfied | Different deletion ranges; not anticipated or rendered obvious | No interference in fact between these claims; two-way test not met. |
| Interference in fact between ’112 and ’447 claims | Claim 9/Claim 1 relation shows obviousness | No direct anticipation/obviousness between these claims | No interference in fact between these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Kevex Corp., 729 F.2d 757 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (interference requires actual interference; disclaimer can moot action)
- Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (disclaimer eliminates claims; jurisdictional impact)
- Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 973 F.2d 911 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (priority declarations can be relief under §291)
- Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (overlap of ranges creates prima facie obviousness; breadth matters)
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (unpredictable properties weighed in obviousness)
- Knoll Pharmaceutical Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 367 F.3d 1381 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (unexpected results may be considered when supported by evidence)
- Papesch, 315 F.2d 381 (CCPA 1963) (consideration of properties alongside structure in obviousness)
- In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed.Cir. 1990) (motivation to modify prior art required for prima facie obviousness)