Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01662/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01662-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abbott GmbH & Co. KG
Appellee
Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ABBOTT GMBH & CO. KG,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1662

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in No. 1:10-cv-01836-RMC, Judge 

Rosemary M. Collyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABBOTT GMBH & CO. KG,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1663

______________________ 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/20/2016
 YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in No. 1:00-cv-01720-RMU, Judge 

Ricardo M. Urbina.

______________________ 

Decided: September 20, 2016 

______________________ 

MATTHEW NIELSEN, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, 

Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant/defendantappellant. Also represented by KEVIN M. FLOWERS,

AMANDA ANTONS; ROGER L. BROWDY, RONNI JILLIONS, 

Browdy and Neimark PLLC, Washington, DC. 

JAMES RICHARD FERGUSON, Mayer Brown, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee/plaintiff-appellee. 

Also represented by TODD RAY WALTERS, Buchanan 

Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Alexandria, VA.

______________________ 

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. (“Yeda”)

appeals two decisions by the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia—one decided in 2008 (No. 

2015-1663) and the other in 2015 (No. 2015-1662). Both 

district court decisions reviewed determinations by the 

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences regarding 

Yeda’s assertion that Abbott GmbH & Co. KG’s (“Abbott”) 

U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 (the “’915 patent”) is invalid as 

anticipated. 

The ’915 patent’s invalidity turns on whether it benefits from the filing dates from either of two German 

patent applications—P39 15 072 (the “’072 application”) 

and P39 22 089 (the “’089 application”). J.A. 5006. If it 

does, then the field of prior art narrows to exclude the 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/20/2016
YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT V. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

3

anticipating reference. Whether the ’915 patent is entitled to benefit from the ’072 application’s filing date 

depends on whether the ’072 application provides adequate written description support for the invention 

claimed in the ’915 patent. 

We affirm the district court’s 2015 decision that Abbott’s ’915 patent is supported by the written description 

of the ’072 application. As this renders moot Yeda’s 

appeal No. 2015-1663 concerning the district court’s 2008 

decision, we dismiss that appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

A. Patented Technology

Abbott’s ’915 patent discloses a protein referred to as

TBP-II. TBP-II binds to and neutralizes a protein called 

Tumor Necrosis Factor α (“TNFα”), which is associated 

with various immunological diseases. The ’915 patent has 

three claims. ’915 patent col. 6 ll. 37−60. Claim 1 is 

representative:

1. A purified and isolated TNFα-binding protein 

which has a molecular weight of about 42,000 daltons and has at the N terminus the amino acid sequence

Xaa Thr Pro Tyr Ala Pro Glu Pro Gly Set 

Thr Cys Arg Leu Arg Glu

where Xaa is hydrogen, a phenylalanine residue 

(Phe), or the amino acid sequences Ala Phe, Val 

Ala Phe, Gln Val Ala Phe, Ala Gln Val Ala Phe, 

Pro Ala Gln Val Ala Phe or Leu Pro Ala Gln Val 

Ala Phe.

The U.S. application that resulted in the ’915 patent 

was filed May 4, 1990. It claimed priority to two applications for a “novel protein”—the ’072 application, filed May 

9, 1989, and the ’089 application, filed July 5, 1989. J.A. 

5006. 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/20/2016
 YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

4

The prior art in question is the Engelmann reference, 

which is an article published in January 1990 that describes and distinguishes the TBP-I and TBP-II proteins.1 

The parties do not dispute that Engelmann constitutes 

applicable prior art if the priority date for the ’915 patent 

is May 1990, but not if the ’915 patent benefits from the 

filing date of either the ’072 or the ’089 application. The 

parties do not dispute that the Engelmann reference 

anticipates the ’915 patent if the priority date is May 

1990.

Neither the ’072 nor the ’089 application discloses the 

full N-terminus sequence claimed in the ’915 patent. 

Instead, they disclose a partial N-terminus sequence, a 

protocol for obtaining the protein from its biological 

source, and additional properties of the protein, such as 

molecular weight, biological activity, and degradation 

characteristics when exposed to trypsin. The parties 

agree that the only protein containing the N-terminus

sequence set forth in the ’072 application is TBP-II—i.e.,

the same protein claimed in the ’915 patent. J.A. 5024. 

B. Procedural History

In 1996, the Board declared Interference No. 103,625 

between Abbott’s ’915 patent and Yeda’s Application No. 

07/930,443. The Board assigned Abbott the May 1990 

filing date of the application that became the ’915 patent 

and held that the ’915 patent was invalid as anticipated 

by Engelmann. Abbott filed suit in federal district court 

seeking review of the Board’s final decision. In 2008, the 

district court granted summary judgment for Abbott, 

holding that the ’089 patent inherently discloses the 

 

1 Dr. Hartmut Engelmann et al. published “Two 

Tumor Necrosis Factor-Binding Proteins Purified from

Human Urine” in the Journal of Biological Chemistry on 

January 16, 1990. J.A. 5009. 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/20/2016
YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT V. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

5

TBP-II protein and provides an adequate written description of the invention claimed in the ’915 application. The 

district court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded 

for further proceedings. 

On remand, the Board reversed course. In 2010, the 

Board held that the ’072 application sufficiently disclosed 

TBP-II for the ’915 patent to benefit from the ’072 application’s May 1989 filing date. Yeda filed a district court 

action seeking review of the Board’s 2010 determination. 

In 2015, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision 

and granted Abbott summary judgment. 

Yeda appeals the district court’s 2008 and 2015 decisions. We have jurisdiction over these appeals pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in an interference action. Boston Sci.

Scimed, Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 497 F.3d 1293, 

1296 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We review de novo the district 

court’s legal determinations. See Rolls-Royce, PLC v. 

United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The Board’s factual findings, including those relied on by 

the district court, are reviewed for substantial evidence. 

In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1311−15 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Substantial evidence exists where a reasonable mind 

could accept it as adequate support for a conclusion. Id. 

at 1312 (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229−30 (1938)). 

DISCUSSION

Yeda raises three arguments on appeal. First, Yeda 

challenges the legal standard applied by the district court 

to determine whether there was adequate written description support for the ’915 patent in the ’072 application. Second, Yeda argues that the prosecution history 

precludes Abbott from relying on inherent disclosure. 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/20/2016
 YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

6

Third, Yeda asserts that the district court erred in holding that the Board’s finding of adequate written description was supported by substantial evidence. 

We first address the legal standard for written description support. In order for the claims of the ’915 

patent to benefit from the ’072 application’s filing date, 

the claimed invention must be disclosed by the ’072 

application. 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 120; see Kennecott Corp. v. 

Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

The invention must be disclosed in a way that clearly 

allows a person of ordinary skill to recognize that the 

inventor invented what is claimed and possessed the 

claimed subject matter at the date of filing. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Yeda argues that the district court failed to apply the 

correct test for determining the sufficiency of the written 

description. According to Yeda, Abbott must show that at 

the time the ’072 application was filed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the 

partial N-terminus sequence in the ’072 application 

included the additional amino acids identified in the ’915 

patent claims at issue. Abbott responds that the district 

court correctly held that the ’072 application need only 

describe and enable the TBP-II protein, and that a protein 

can be adequately described when a partial amino acid 

sequence is disclosed along with other biological characteristics. 

Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a 

specification describes an invention that has certain

undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification

serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the 

invention’s inherent properties. See Kennecott, 835 F.2d 

at 1423. In this case, it is undisputed that TBP-II is the 

only protein with the same partial N-terminus sequence 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/20/2016
YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT V. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

7

and additional traits disclosed in the ’072 application. J.A. 5024. Therefore, the ’072 application inherently discloses the remaining amino acids in the N-terminus 

sequence of TBP-II and serves as adequate written description support for the patent claiming TBP-II. It is not 

necessary for an application to disclose a protein’s complete N-terminus sequence in order to provide an adequate written description of that protein. Yeda relies on 

two cases where we declined to find inherent disclosure to 

argue that the doctrine of inherent disclosure does not 

extend to this case: Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) and In re Wallach, 378 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). We disagree. Neither Hyatt nor Wallach involved 

the situation present in this case, where it is undisputed 

that the invention described in an earlier application was 

the exact invention claimed by the later patent. 

Yeda also argues that prosecution history belies Abbott’s reliance on inherent disclosure. Yeda notes that in 

“the context of priority determinations, the allegedly 

inherent limitation cannot be material to the patentability of the invention.” Yeda asserts that the amino acids 

missing from the ’072 application are material because 

Abbott relied upon their absence to distinguish the prior 

art during prosecution of the ’915 patent. See Hitzeman v. 

Rutter, 243 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prosecution history, however, does not support Yeda’s argument. 

During prosecution of the ’915 patent, the examiner 

rejected claims based on prior art that disclosed a protein 

with the same source, weight, and function as the protein 

claimed in the ’915 patent. J.A. 9251. Abbott relied on 

the Engelmann article to argue that the cited art concerned only TBP-I, and that TBP-II includes a sequence of 

five amino acids not present in TBP-I that match the 

chain recited in the ’915 patent claims. J.A. 9268, 

9276−77. Abbott’s response did not solely rely on amino 

acids missing from the priority applications; three of the 

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/20/2016
 YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. ABBOTT GMBH 

& CO. KG

8

five amino acids disclosed in Engelmann were disclosed in 

the ’072 application and were themselves sufficient to 

distinguish TBP-I from TBP-II. 

Finally, we reject Yeda’s argument that the district 

court erred in finding that the Board’s conclusion that the 

’072 application provides written description for the ’915 

patent is supported by substantial evidence. As the 

district court noted, the Board’s decision rested on the 

facts that the ’072 application identified nine of the fifteen

amino acids of the N-terminus sequences recited in the 

relevant claim, as well as several biological characteristics 

of the protein. J.A. 5028. The parties do not dispute that 

no known protein other than TBP-II matches these characteristics. The district court correctly found that the 

Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. 

CONCLUSION

Because the ’072 application provides an adequate 

written description of the protein claimed in Abbott’s ’915 

patent, the ’915 patent benefits from the priority date of 

the ’072 application. We affirm the district court’s 2015

decision. We dismiss Yeda’s appeal No. 2015-1663 from

the district court’s 2008 decision for lack of jurisdiction, as 

it is now moot. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1662 Document: 71-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/20/2016