About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Hartig Drug Co. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. (3d Cir. 2016) | Main | Supreme Court IP Review »

September 08, 2016


Don, thanks for the write-up.

This case is of mild personal interest to me b/c the third-named inventor was my wife's PhD advisor.

I find the case of general interesting as a reminder of the dangers that lurk with trying to shoehorn into the claims things that have suspect (or no) support in the specification. Had Yeda refrained from trying to introduce those claims, the claims still might have been construed as covering only hybridoma-produced MAbs, but at least the argument would have been available to Yeda.

This is the fourth knock for Yeda in the past month. In PTAB IPR decisions it lost three patents that it licensed to Teva that cover formulations of Copaxone, Teva's drug for multiple sclerosis.

"Be careful what you ask for" has always been relevant to patent prosecution, but this is a new twist. Had Yeda never filed those extra claims, they'd not be estopped now, which to me is an illogical result. (The examiner had conceded that non-murine antibodies were enabled.)

As for the "general rule" put forth by the court, "A patent applicant cannot later obtain scope that was requested during prosecution, rejected by the Examiner, and then withdrawn by the applicant," that doesn't seem to fit the case. The new claims could - and should - have been dependent claims (the file history isn't public), in which case they did not present a request for additional scope.

I agree, that's really an unfortunate result. Chimeric antibodies are definitely within the scope of "monoclonal" antibodies. Had the applicant been less aggressive during prosecution, this may have gone a different direction during litigation. Any grad student, much less a PHOSITA, could tell you that a chimeric antibody is monoclonal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30