In Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, the Federal Circuit grappled with the issue of whether claims directed to methods and systems for inactivating bacteria using blue light were obvious in view of a prior art combination that taught the claimed elements but lacked an indication of success. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit found that the patent’s success where the prior art failed – inactivation of the bacteria without a photosensitizer did not support a finding of obviousness.
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a jury verdict and billion-dollar judgment in favor of Juno Therapeutics on the grounds that the asserted claims did not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Juno Therapeutics, Inv. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.. This case further builds on the application of the written description requirement to claims that recite functional limitations, and is instructive to patent prosecutors.
Confronting a life sciences patentee with its statements to regulatory bodies (such as the FDA) is a textbook defense strategy in patent litigation. After all, communications with regulatory bodies are often performed by non-attorneys who may not appreciate the consequences of their statements in future litigation. And while in ideal circumstances the patentee’s attorneys will ensure accurate and consistent communications and try to put potentially inconsistent statements in context, it is not always possible to do so once the genie is out of the bottle. Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., exemplifies the dire consequences that can result from inconsistent communications with regulators—particularly if a defendant can point to a single source for those communications.