small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. Insights & News

Client Alert

Product-by-Process Anticipation Analyses Apply to Product-by-Process Limitations Nested Within Method-of-Treatment Claims

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Client Alert

Product-by-Process Anticipation Analyses Apply to Product-by-Process Limitations Nested Within Method-of-Treatment Claims

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

1 Min Read

Author

Claire Fundakowski

Related Locations

Charlotte
Chicago
San Francisco
Silicon Valley

Related Topics

Patent Litigation

Related Capabilities

Patent Litigation
Intellectual Property

Related Regions

North America

November 16, 2020

Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serano, Inc., No. 19-1133 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2020)

In reversing a district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no anticipation, the Federal Circuit clarified that a method-of-treatment claim reciting a product-by-process limitation can be anticipated by prior art disclosing the same product produced by a different process.

At the district court, the jury found anticipation of claims reciting a method of treatment with a pharmaceutically effective amount of a recombinant polypeptide.  In particular, the evidence showed that an identical amino acid sequence for the polypeptide was disclosed in the prior art, albeit in its native form, rather than in recombinant form.  Following the jury verdict, the district court granted JMOL of no anticipation, holding that no reasonable jury could find anticipation because the prior art did not disclose the recombinant form of the polypeptide.  In reaching this conclusion, the district court declined to apply a product-by-process analysis to a product-by-process limitation recited by the claims.  The district court alternatively opined that even under a product-by-process analysis, the recombinant form of the polypeptide required a three-dimensional structure, and there was insufficient evidence that the prior art disclosed such a structure.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JMOL of no anticipation and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s finding of anticipation.  The Federal Circuit explained that under its precedent, an old product is not patentable even if it is made by a new process, and further clarified that this principle applies to method-of-treatment claims that include product-by-process limitations.  The Federal Circuit explained that the claims’ requirement that the polypeptide is “recombinant” merely described the process by which the product is formed, and does not add structural limitations.  Under the proper legal framework, the Federal Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the claims anticipated.

Read the full post here. 

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

Claire Fundakowski

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

Claire Fundakowski

David Enzminger

Ivan Poullaos

Mike Rueckheim

Danielle Williams

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising