Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01933/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01933-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Genentech, Inc.
Appellant
Hospira, Inc.
Appellee
United States
Intervenor

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GENENTECH, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOSPIRA, INC.,

Appellee

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-1933

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01837.

______________________

Decided: January 10, 2020

______________________

THOMAS S. FLETCHER, Williams & Connolly LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by PAUL B. GAFFNEY, EDEN SCHIFFMANN, JONATHAN SIDHU. 

 THOMAS J. MELORO, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

ALEXANDRA AWAI, MICHAEL JOHNSON. 

 COURTNEY DIXON, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2020
2 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by KATHERINE 

TWOMEY ALLEN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Genentech, Inc. appeals from the final written decision 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent 

Office) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) holding 

claims 1–3 and 5–11 of U.S. Patent 7,807,799 (the ’799 patent) unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. See Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. IPR2016-01837, 2018 WL 

1187484 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018) (the ’837 Decision). The 

Patent Office intervened in this appeal to defend the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings as 

applied to patents issued before the enactment of the 

America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 

284 (2011). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Genentech owns the ’799 patent, which is directed to 

methods of purifying antibodies and other proteins containing a CH2/CH3 region from impurities by protein A affinity chromatography. ’799 patent at col. 7 ll. 50–54. 

Protein A affinity chromatography is a standard purification technique employed in the processing of therapeutic 

proteins, especially antibodies, which involves “using protein A . . . immobilized on a solid phase.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 27–

30. “The solid phase may comprise a glass, silica, 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 3

polystyrene, or agarose surface,” such as a chromatography 

column resin “to which the protein A can . . . be covalently 

bound.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 41–47. “Protein A is a useful adsorbent for affinity chromatography of proteins, such as antibodies” because protein A reversibly binds with high 

affinity to a specific region common to most antibodies, the 

CH2/CH3 region. Id. at col. 2 ll. 6–11, col. 4 ll. 20–25, 30–

31, col. 5 ll. 17–28.

In protein A affinity chromatography, a composition 

comprising a mixture of the target antibody and undesired 

impurities often present in harvested cell culture fluid 

(HCCF) is placed into the chromatography column. Id. at 

col. 18 ll. 47–51. The target antibody binds to protein A, 

which is covalently bound to the chromatography column 

resin, while the impurities and rest of the composition pass 

through the column. Id. at col. 18 ll. 47–51, col. 20 ll. 6–11. 

Next, the antibody of interest is removed from the chromatography column, typically with a low pH wash. Id. at col. 

19 ll. 45–51. The antibody is collected as it is washed from 

the chromatography column, then typically subjected to 

further purification steps, and used for therapeutic purposes after formulation. Id. at col. 19 ll. 51–63.

While protein A affinity chromatography has been “a 

powerful tool . . . for purifying antibodies,” it was known to 

have a downside. See id. at col. 20 ll. 6–12. Small amounts 

of the protein A that are attached to the chromatography 

column would “leach” (i.e., detach) from the column and 

contaminate the otherwise-purified antibody solution. See 

id. at col. 20 ll. 11–15, col. 4 ll. 48–50. Thus, further purification steps are typically employed to remove leached 

protein A from the antibody solution. See id. at col. 20 ll.

12–15. 

The invention of the ’799 patent “concerns a method for 

reducing leaching of protein A . . . by reducing [the] temperature” of the “composition that is subjected to protein A 

affinity chromatography.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 16–21. The 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2020
4 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

specification discloses that “[p]referably, . . . the temperature of the composition is reduced below room temperature, 

for instance in the range from about 3°C to about 20°C, e.g.

from about 10°C to about 18°C.” Id. at col. 18 ll. 4–9. According to the patent, “[t]he temperature of the composition 

may be reduced prior to and/or during protein A affinity

chromatography” and, in a preferred embodiment, involves 

“lowering the temperature of the harvested cell culture 

fluid (HCCF) which is subjected to chromatography.” Id. 

at col. 18 ll. 9–16.

Claim 1, the sole independent claim at issue, recites:

1. A method of purifying a protein which comprises CH2/CH3 region, comprising subjecting a 

composition comprising said protein to protein 

A affinity chromatography at a temperature in 

the range from about 10°C to about 18°C. 

Id. at col. 35 ll. 44–47 (emphasis added).

Hospira, Inc. sought IPR of claims 1–3 and 5–11 of the 

’799 patent. The Board instituted trial on all eight grounds 

of unpatentability, which all rely on WO ’3891 or van Sommeren2 as the primary reference. 

The Board determined that all the challenged claims 

were unpatentable as anticipated by WO ’389 or rendered 

obvious by WO ’389 alone or in combination with other 

prior art references. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at 

 

1 International Patent Application Publication WO

95/22389 A1, J.A. 508–54 (WO ’389). 

2 van Sommeren et al., Effects of Temperature, Flow 

Rate and Composition of Binding Buffer on Adsorption of 

Mouse Monoclonal IgG1 Antibodies to Protein A Sepharose 

4 Fast Flow, 22 PREPARATIVE BIOCHEMISTRY 135 (1992), 

J.A. 555–74 (van Sommeren). 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 4 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 5

*12, *19–20. Also, the Board construed “about 18°C,” and 

based on that claim construction, it concluded that all the 

challenged claims were unpatentable as anticipated by van 

Sommeren or rendered obvious by van Sommeren alone or 

in combination with other prior art references. Id. at *13, 

*22. 

Genentech appeals. The Patent Office intervened pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 to defend against Genentech’s constitutionality challenge to IPRs as applied to the ’799 

patent because it issued on October 5, 2010, which is before 

the enactment of the AIA in 2011. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, 

and the Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek 

LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A finding is 

supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind 

might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. 

Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). Obviousness is a question of law based on 

underlying factual findings, including “the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and 

the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and any objective indicia of non-obviousness.” 

Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 

(2007)).

I. ANTICIPATION BY WO ’389

The Board determined that claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by WO ’389. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *8. 

WO ’389 teaches a method for purifying certain antibodies

of the IgG class, which are proteins comprising the 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 5 Filed: 01/10/2020
6 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

CH2/CH3 region, including a step wherein HCCF is subject 

to protein A affinity chromatography. J.A. 511 at 2:37, 522

at 13:9–13. WO ’389 Example 1 discloses a washing step 

after HCCF is applied to the chromatography column, 

whereupon the HCCF composition is washed with at least 

three column volumes of buffer before the antibody is 

eluted. J.A. 523 at 14:20–23. WO ’389 teaches that “[a]ll 

steps are carried out at room temperature (18–25°C).” J.A. 

522 at 13:13. 

Claim 1, the sole challenged independent claim of the 

’799 patent, requires “subjecting a composition . . . to protein A affinity chromatography at a temperature in the 

range from about 10°C to about 18°C.” ’799 patent at claim 

1. The temperature range disclosed in WO ’389, “18–25°C,” 

overlaps with the claimed range of “about 10°C to about 

18°C,” regardless of the construction of “about 18°C.” Indeed, Genentech’s own proposed construction for “about 

18°C” embraces temperatures up to 19°C, which further reinforces the overlap with WO ’389’s disclosed temperature 

range. 

A prior art reference that discloses an overlapping but 

different range than the claimed range can be anticipatory, 

even where the prior art range only partially or slightly 

overlaps with the claimed range. See Ineos USA LLC v. 

Berry Plastics Corp., 783 F.3d 865, 870–71 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

(affirming summary judgment of anticipation of patent 

claims for composition with “0.05 to 0.5% by weight of at 

least one saturated fatty acid amide” lubricant in view of a 

prior art reference disclosing the same class of lubricant in

an overlapping range of “0.1 to 5 parts by weight,” and the 

parties agreed that a measurement in “% by weight” was

equivalent to one in “parts by weight”). Once the patent 

challenger has established, through overlapping ranges, its 

prima facie case of anticipation, “the court must evaluate 

whether the patentee has established that the claimed 

range is critical to the operability of the claimed invention.” 

Id. at 871; see also E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 6 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 7

Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“‘where 

there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed 

invention falls within that range, the burden of production 

falls upon the patentee to come forward with evidence’ of

. . . criticality”) (quoting Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, 

Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, the Board 

found that Genentech failed to establish that the claimed 

temperature range of “about 10°C to about 18°C” is critical 

to performing protein A chromatography. ’837 Decision,

2018 WL 1187484, at *10–11. Genentech does not challenge the Board’s finding as to criticality, and accordingly, 

whether or not the claimed temperature range achieves different performance results than WO ’389’s disclosed temperature range is not at issue on appeal. Appellee’s Br. at 

15. 

Aside from the overlapping range issue, the Board construed the limitation “subjecting a composition . . . to protein A affinity chromatography at a temperature in the 

range from about 10°C to about 18°C” as referring to the 

temperature of the composition prior to and/or during protein A affinity chromatography. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 

1187484, at *8 (emphasis added). The Board found that 

WO ’389’s disclosed temperature range applies to all components used in the purification process, including the 

HCCF composition being purified. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 

1187484, at *10. In that way, it found WO ’389 discloses

that prior to protein A affinity chromatography, the HCCF 

composition is at a temperature within the claimed range 

of “about 10°C to about 18°C.” Additionally, the Board 

found that WO ’389’s disclosed composition’s temperature

reaches the claimed temperature range during protein A

affinity chromatography. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, 

at *10. The Board read WO ’389’s teaching that “[a]ll steps 

are carried out at room temperature (18–25°C)” to mean 

that the apparatus of the chromatography column and column buffers are all within that temperature range. Id. 

Based on WO ’389 Example 1’s disclosure of washing the 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 7 Filed: 01/10/2020
8 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

composition with at least three column volumes of buffer, 

the Board inferred that the composition would reach “18–

25°C” during the washing step, and thus be within the 

claimed temperature range. Id.

On appeal, Genentech argues that WO ’389’s statement 

that “[a]ll steps are carried out at room temperature (18–

25°C)” refers only to the temperature of the laboratory 

where each step was performed, and not to the temperature 

of the HCCF composition applied to the chromatography 

column. Appellant’s Br. at 33–34. Genentech contends 

this statement cannot be referring to the temperature of 

the HCCF composition because WO ’389 discloses some 

“steps” being carried out where the composition was cold or 

frozen. J.A. 523–24 (disclosing that after the viral inactivation step “[t]he resulting solution is . . . held in sterile 

containers at 4°C, or frozen and held at -70°C”). Both parties’ experts testified that HCCF comes from a bioreactor 

in which cells are typically cultured around 37°C. J.A. 

1351–52 ¶ 77 (Dr. Cramer’s testimony); J.A. 1531 (Dr. 

Przybycien’s testimony). Both parties’ experts also testified that WO ’389 does not specify how long the HCCF was 

held before being subjected to protein A affinity chromatography. J.A. 1352 ¶ 78 (Dr. Cramer’s testimony); J.A. 1554 

(Dr. Przybycien’s testimony). According to Genentech’s expert, Dr. Cramer, efficiency is typically a goal of industrial 

processes, and absent an instruction to wait to allow the 

HCCF to cool to room temperature, a skilled artisan would 

have interpreted WO ’389 as allowing the disclosed process 

to be performed with HCCF that was potentially warmer 

than room temperature. J.A. 1352 ¶ 78. Genentech contends that even if the laboratory was at “room temperature 

(18–25°C),” the HCCF composition need not have been. 

Appellant’s Br. at 33.3

 

3 Although the dissent believes that WO ’389’s “room 

temperature” would not be understood to encompass 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 8 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 9

Hospira responds that WO ’389 uses the term, “room 

temperature (18–25°C),” to describe the temperature for 

conducting protein A affinity chromatography, and all the 

components involved in that process, including the composition to be purified. Appellee’s Br. at 29. According to 

Hospira’s expert, Dr. Przybycien, in the field of antibody 

purification, absent contrary language, a skilled artisan 

would understand that experiments are being conducted at 

ambient temperature with all materials equilibrated in order to obtain robust scientific data. J.A. 946 ¶ 26. Based 

on WO ’389’s disclosure that the composition was cold or 

frozen after the viral inactivation step, Hospira contends 

that WO ’389 specifically called out the temperature of the 

composition when requiring it to be at a temperature other 

than room temperature. Appellee’s Br. at 31–32 (citing 

J.A. 523–24). 

Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding 

that the HCCF subject to protein A affinity chromatography in WO ’389 is within the claimed temperature range 

of claim 1. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *9–10. The 

Board reasoned that it would have been redundant to specifically call out the temperature of the HCCF during protein A affinity chromatography in light of WO ’389’s 

blanket statement to carry out all steps at “18–25°C.” Id.

at *9. The Board considered, but disagreed with, Dr. 

Cramer’s interpretation of WO ’389 as disclosing a process 

with HCCF that was warmer than “18–25°C” because his 

opinion was predicated on the view that the ’799 patent is 

directed to large-scale, industrial processes, which it is not. 

Id. Further, Dr. Cramer testified that even for large-scale, 

 

temperatures as low as 18°C, WO ’389 expressly discloses 

a temperature range that includes 18°C. Thus, the Board 

reasonably read the temperature range of WO ’389 to encompass temperatures as low as 18°C. Genentech does not 

contend otherwise.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 9 Filed: 01/10/2020
10 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

industrial processes, he was not aware of any process 

where HCCF was applied directly into the chromatography 

column after being removed from the bioreactor and filtered. Id. at *10 (citing J.A. 1075 at 85:6–15). The Board 

instead credited Dr. Przybycien’s testimony that no skilled 

artisan would contact 37°C HCCF to the chromatography 

column, and report having performed the step at “room 

temperature (18–25°C)” because using HCCF that was 

warmer than the chromatography column would raise the 

temperature of the entire system, making it impossible to 

conduct “[a]ll steps . . . at room temperature.” ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *10 (citing J.A. 947 ¶ 27). To 

the extent that the experts disagreed with each other, the 

Board reasonably chose to credit the testimony of Dr. 

Przybycien over the testimony of Dr. Cramer. Id. at *9–10. 

See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more 

credibility to [one expert’s] testimony over [another’s] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”). We 

discern no reversible error in that choice. 

We are not persuaded by Genentech’s arguments that 

this result is contrary to the case law. Appellant’s Br. at 

36. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Board Ocean Motor 

Co., cited by Genentech, holds that a reference missing a 

limitation cannot anticipate even if a skilled artisan would 

“at once envisage” the missing limitation. 851 F.3d 1270,

1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We do not agree with Genentech’s argument that there is a “missing limitation.” As 

discussed above, the Board reasonably found that a skilled 

artisan would have understood that WO ’389’s disclosed 

composition is within the claimed temperature range prior 

to or during protein A affinity chromatography. “Anticipation is established when ‘one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the prior art reference’s 

teaching that every claim [limitation] was disclosed in that 

single reference.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 

1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Akamai Techs., Inc. v. 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 10 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 11

Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192–

93 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). That is the case here.

Genentech does not raise any arguments with respect 

to any other claim limitation, nor does it separately argue 

dependent claim 5. Thus, dependent claim 5 stands or falls

together with independent claim 1. See In re Kaslow, 707 

F.2d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We therefore conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

WO ’389 anticipates claims 1 and 5 of the ’799 patent. 

II. OBVIOUSNESS GROUNDS BASED ON WO ’389

The Board determined that claims 1 and 5 would have 

been obvious over WO ’389; claims 1–3 and 5 would have 

been obvious in view of WO ’389, Balint,4 and Potier5; and

claims 2–3 and 6–11 would have been obvious in view of 

WO ’389, Balint, Potier and/or U.S. Patent 6,127,526. As 

with anticipation, Genentech challenges the Board’s determination that WO ’389’s disclosed temperature range renders the claimed temperature range obvious. 

If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim 

limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, “we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a 

prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 

1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have said such an overlap 

creates a presumption of obviousness, and that the burden 

 

4 Joseph P. Balint, Jr. and Frank R. Jones, Evidence 

for Proteolytic Cleavage of Covalently Bound Protein A from 

a Silica Based Extracorporeal Immunoadsorbent and Lack 

of Relationship to Treatment Effects, 16 TRANSFUS. SCI. 85 

(1995), J.A. 578–87 (Balint).

5 P. Potier et al., Temperature-Dependent Changes in 

Proteolytic Activities and Protein Composition in the Psychrotrophic Bacterium Arthrobacter Globiformis S155, 136 

J. GEN. MICROBIOL. 283 (1990), J.A. 592–600 (Potier). 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 11 Filed: 01/10/2020
12 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with 

pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not 

have been obvious in light of the prior art. E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008

(Fed. Cir. 2018) (collecting cases). 

One way in which the patentee may rebut the presumption of obviousness is by showing “that there is something special or critical about the claimed range.” Id. The 

presumption of obviousness applies here, and the Board 

found that Genentech failed to establish criticality for the 

claimed temperature range. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 

1187484, at *18. On appeal, Genentech does not argue that 

this Board finding lacks substantial evidence. Appellee’s 

Br. at 15. 

Another way in which the presumption can be rebutted 

is by showing that a process parameter, such as temperature, was not recognized as “result-effective.” DuPont, 904 

F.3d at 1006 (citing Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1295). 

“The idea behind the ‘result-effective variable’ analysis is 

. . . that a person of ordinary skill would not always be motivated to optimize a parameter ‘if there is no evidence in 

the record that the prior art recognized that [that] particular parameter affected the result.’” Id. at 1008 (quoting In 

re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). But where the 

prior art recognizes that the process parameter affects the 

relevant property or result, then the process parameter is 

“result-effective.” Id. at 1009. 

The Board found that a skilled artisan would have recognized that the temperature for conducting protein A affinity chromatography was a result-effective variable. ’837 

Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *18. The Board found that 

it was recognized in the prior art at the time of the invention that leaching was caused by proteolysis of matrixbound protein A (as illustrated in Balint and other prior art 

references), and that proteolysis was affected by temperature (as illustrated in Potier). Id.; see id. at *19; J.A. 594, 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 12 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 13

596 (Potier demonstrating that the extent of protein degradation caused by proteolysis increased with temperature). 

Moreover, the Board found that a skilled artisan would 

have expected that lowering temperature would reduce 

proteolysis of matrix-bound protein A, and consequently, 

would reduce protein A leaching. Id. at *17; see id. at *19.

“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve 

upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of . . . ranges 

is the optimum combination.” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330. 

“Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in 

the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or 

workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (1955)). The Board

reasonably found that a skilled artisan would have been 

motivated to optimize the temperature given the teachings 

of the prior art, and that given the ease with which temperature can be varied, finding an optimal temperature 

range would have been nothing more than routine experimentation. ’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *18–19.

On appeal, Genentech does not appear to contest that 

temperature is a result-effective variable in the claimed 

process. Instead, Genentech argues that the desire to reduce protein A leaching applies only to the large-scale, industrial purification of therapeutic antibodies for clinical 

applications, because non-clinical applications do not involve concerns about product purity that require the elimination of leached protein A. Appellant’s Br. at 41. 

Genentech further contends that chilling HCCF for largescale, industrial processes would have been inconvenient, 

costly, and impractical. Appellant’s Br. at 45. 

Hospira responds that it would be desirable to reduce 

protein A leaching for non-clinical applications because 

protein A leaching degrades chromatography columns, reducing their usable capacity and life span. Appellee Br. at 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 13 Filed: 01/10/2020
14 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

46 (citing J.A. 932). The Board correctly noted that neither 

the challenged claims nor the disclosure of WO ’389 are 

limited to large-scale, industrial processes. ’837 Decision, 

2018 WL 1187484, at *9. The evidence in the record supports the Board’s finding that the temperature of the chromatography column could be readily controlled. We hold 

that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion 

that it would have been routine experimentation to explore 

the temperature dependence of protein A leaching. Genentech has not shown that the Board’s factual findings are 

unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Board considered Genentech’s evidence of objective 

indicia of nonobviousness but found it to be unpersuasive. 

’837 Decision, 2018 WL 1187484, at *19. Genentech alleged industry praise and recognition by others in the field 

based on the selection of a presentation relating to the 

claimed method at the American Chemical Society’s National Meeting in 2005. Genentech contends that the fact 

that its research was selected for presentation undermines 

the Board’s conclusion that the claimed method would have 

been the obvious result of “routine optimization.” Appellant’s Br. at 52–53. Hospira responds, and we agree, that 

Genentech fails to establish a nexus between the objective 

indicia and the claimed method because there was no evidence that the presentation was selected due to the claimed 

method. Appellee Br. at 53. Substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s decision to accord little weight to Genentech’s 

evidence of objective indicia. 

The Board next determined that claims 2–3 and 6–11 

would have been obvious over WO ’389, Balint, Potier 

and/or U.S. Patent 6,127,526. Genentech does not separately argue the dependent claims and relies on the arguments it raised for anticipation and obviousness over WO 

’389. Thus, the dependent claims stand or fall together 

with the independent claim 1. See Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 

1376. We therefore conclude that the Board did not err in 

concluding that claims 1–3 and 5–11 of the ’799 patent

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 14 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 15

would have been obvious over WO ’389 alone or in combination with other prior art references. 

IV. OTHER ISSUES

Genentech also argues that because the Board erred in 

construing “about 18°C,” the claims are not anticipated by

van Sommeren nor obvious over grounds that include van 

Sommeren. Because we have determined that the Board 

did not err in concluding that all of the challenged claims 

are unpatentable on grounds based on WO ’389, we need 

not reach the arguments involving van Sommeren. See 

Oral Arg. at 2:01–2:50, Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 

2018-1933 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2019), http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2018-1933.mp3.

Finally, we address Genentech’s challenge that retroactive application of IPR to a patent issued prior to passage 

of the AIA constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s 

Takings Clause.6 We recently addressed this issue in 

Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1356–63 (Fed. Cir. 

2019). As we explained, pre-AIA patents were issued subject to both district court and Patent Office validity proceedings. Id. at 1359. Though IPR differs from district 

court and pre-AIA Patent Office reexamination proceedings, we held that those differences were not sufficiently 

substantive or significant such that a “constitutional issue” 

is created when IPR is applied to pre-AIA patents. Id. at 

1362; see also id. at 1358 & n.13 (affirming that our prior 

decisions ruling that retroactive application of reexamination does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh 

 

6 To the extent Genentech intends to separately 

raise a due process challenge, the limited conclusory assertions it presented are “insufficient to preserve the issue for 

appeal.” See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 

1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 15 Filed: 01/10/2020
16 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

Amendment, or Article III “control the outcome” of similar 

challenges to IPR).

Like the patent at issue in Celgene, when the ’799 patent issued, patentees already expected that their patents 

could be challenged in district court and “[f]or forty years” 

had expected that “the [Patent Office] could reconsider the 

validity of issued patents on particular grounds, applying 

a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Id. at 1363. 

Accordingly, application of IPR to Genentech’s patent, on 

grounds that were available for Patent Office reconsideration when the patent was issued and under the same burden of proof, does not create a constitutional issue, and we 

reject Genentech’s constitutional challenge.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Genentech’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 16 Filed: 01/10/2020
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GENENTECH, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOSPIRA, INC.,

Appellee

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-1933

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01837.

______________________

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent, for the court finds the claims of 

U.S. Patent 7,807,799 (“the ’799 patent”) invalid for anticipation or obviousness, although no prior art shows the 

claimed method, or suggests that it should be attempted or

that it might be successful. The court presents a hindsight 

determination that this apparently simple solution to a difficult problem is anticipated and obvious, although it was 

not known or obvious to the scientists who were attempting 

to solve the problem of leaching contamination, and the experts for both sides agreed that the solution presented in 

the ’799 patent was new to them.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 17 Filed: 01/10/2020
2 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

The ’799 patent describes the complexities of obtaining 

and purifying biological products such as antibodies, in the 

purity and on the scale needed for medicinal use. The patent describes a procedure called “protein A affinity chromatography,” and its known use with biological materials. 

The patent describes the problem that the inventors encountered due to leaching of the protein A. The inventors 

described their discovery of the cause of the leaching, and 

the solution they found. This solution is not shown or suggested in the prior art—yet is deemed anticipated or obvious by my colleagues.

The ’799 invention

The ’799 patent is directed to the separation and purification of specified antibodies from the harvested cell culture fluid. Protein A affinity chromatography was a known 

tool for purifying antibodies. ’799 patent col. 20, ll. 6–7. 

Protein A has “the ability to bind proteins which have a 

CH2/CH3 region.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 20–25. In protein A affinity chromatography, the antibody containing “a CH2/CH3 

region may be reversibly bound to, or adsorbed by, the protein A,” the protein A extracts the antibody from its cell 

culture fluid, and the pure antibody is eluted. Id. at col. 4,

ll. 27–47; Id. at col. 1, ll. 56–66. “Dynamic capacity” of protein A affinity chromatography “depends on many factors, 

including the type of protein A affinity chromatography 

media, the antibody concentration in the load, the column 

temperature and column length, the buffer, conductivity, 

and pH of the load, and the flow rate.” J.A. 1312.1

 

1 This scientific article, authored by an inventor of 

the ’799 patent, discusses protein A affinity chromatography for purification of biologicals. Fahrner et al., The 

Optimal Flow Rate and Column Length for Maximum 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 18 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 3

Genentech states that in its commercial-scale process 

for preparing specified antibodies, it was found that small 

but unacceptable amounts of protein A had leached from 

the column and contaminated the eluted antibody. Although the prior art describes possible procedures for removing any contaminating protein A, the Genentech 

inventors testified, and the experts for both sides agreed, 

these procedures were not effective for these antibodies. 

The Genentech research team “spent months trying to 

solve the leached protein A problem, under significant commercial pressure.” J.A. 1436. “The research team eventually observed that . . . leaching might be caused by 

proteolysis” leading to “a series of experiments using reduced temperature and protease inhibitors.” J.A. 1435.

Thus the inventors found the solution of temperature 

reduction, as described and claimed in the ’799 patent. The 

retrospective simplicity of the solution apparently led the 

Board to find it obvious to them, despite the undisputed 

testimony that no reference suggests this solution to the 

contamination problem here encountered, as the experts 

for both sides acknowledged. On this appeal, Hospira offers no contradictory evidence, prior art, or argument.

Nonetheless, the Board held this novel method to be 

anticipated and obvious, although not described or suggested in the prior art; and my colleagues agree.

The prior art temperature range does not 

show or suggest the ’799 invention

Claim 1 of the ’799 patent states the temperature and 

other limitations for conduct of the claimed method:

1. A method of purifying a protein which comprises a CH2/CH3 region, comprising subjecting

 

Production Rate of Protein A Affinity Chromatography, 21 

Bioprocess Engineering 287 (1999)), J.A. 1312–17.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 19 Filed: 01/10/2020
4 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

a composition comprising said protein to protein A affinity chromatography at a temperature in the range from about 10 o C. to about 

18 o C.

’799 patent col. 35, ll. 44–47.

The ’799 patent specification describes the invention as 

“a method of purifying a protein which comprises a 

CH2/CH3 region, comprising reducing the temperature of a 

composition comprising the protein and one or more impurities subjected to protein A affinity chromatography in the 

range from about 3o C. to about 20o C., wherein protein A 

leaching is reduced.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 22–27. The specification further states: “Preferably, the method comprises reducing the temperature of the composition subjected to the 

protein A affinity chromatography, e.g. where the temperature of the composition is reduced below room temperature, for instance in the range from about 3o C. to about 

20o C., e.g. from about 10o C. to about 18o C.” Id. at col. 18,

ll. 4–9.

The Board discarded this description, stating that it 

was merely a “preferred embodiment,” whereby the Board

“decline[d] to rewrite claim 1.” Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, 

Inc., No. IPR2016-01837, 2018 WL 1187484, at *6 (P.T.A.B. 

Mar. 6, 2018) (“Board Op.”). The Board stated that “understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, [but] it is 

important not to import into a claim limitations that 

[which is] not a part of the claim,” quoting SuperGuide 

Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 

2004)), the Board apparently ignoring that claim 1, and all 

the claims, explicitly require “a temperature in the range 

from about 10 o C. to about 18 o C.” See Board Op. at *6. 

The Board’s statement that it “decline[d] to rewrite claim 

1” is puzzling, for claim 1 as written is limited to the preferred embodiment.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 20 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 5

The ’799 patent specification describes the protein A 

affinity chromatography of 12,000 liters of cell culture 

fluid, chilled to “15 +/– 3o C,” supporting the temperature 

limit of “about 18 o C” in the claims. ’799 patent col. 21,

ll. 4–8.

The Board cited the prosecution history of a related patent, and found that Genentech “limited the meaning of 

‘about’ in the term ‘about 18 oC’ to at least ±>2 oC, but less 

than ±4o C.” Board Op. at *7. Genentech amended the upper limit of its claims from “20oC” to “about 18oC” in view 

of a reference that showed affinity chromatography at 

“about 22oC.” J.A. 733–43, 740. The Board recited that 

“self-serving statements in the prosecution” are “accord[ed]

little weight.” Board Op. at *7. To the contrary, statements during prosecution are a primary resource and rigorous commitment in construing patent claims. Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

The Board’s construction that the range of “about 10 o C. to 

about 18 o C.” reads on the prior art is not supported in fact 

or law.

The Board cited, and my colleagues discuss, two principal references. The scientific article of van Sommeren2

includes data for protein A affinity chromatography performed at the standard of ambient temperature. The article compares results at “ambient temperature (AT) 

(20–25 oC)” with results in a cold room at 4 oC. J.A. 570. 

Based on this reference, the Board reasoned that 20–25oC 

“overlaps with [its] construction of ‘about 18o C.’ as having 

an upper bound of 21 oC.” Board Op. at *12. Thus the 

 

2 van Sommeren et al., Effects of Temperature, Flow 

Rate and Composition of Binding Buffer on Adsorption of 

Mouse Monoclonal IgG1 Antibodies to Protein A Sepharose 

4 Fast Flow, 22(2) Preparative Biochemistry 135 (1992), 

J.A. 555–74 (“van Sommeren”).

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 21 Filed: 01/10/2020
6 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

Board held the ’799 patent claims anticipated or obvious in 

view of van Sommeren.

The other principal reference, WO ’389,3 shows protein 

A chromatography in which “[a]ll steps are carried out at 

room temperature (18–25 oC).” J.A. 522. The WO ’389 application recognizes that protein A may leach from the column, and states that its removal from the eluent may 

require “hydrophobic interaction chromatography.” 

J.A. 512–13 (“Although Protein A affinity column chromatography is widely used, it is also appreciated that elution 

of antibody from such columns can result in leaching of residual Protein A from the support. . . . It has now been 

surprisingly discovered that HIC [hydrophobic interaction 

chromatography] can be usefully employed to remove contaminating Protein A.”). Genentech points to the advantages of its method, in contrast with the WO ’389 

teaching of the need to conduct another chromatographic 

procedure to remove the contaminating Protein A.

The experts for both sides agreed that the WO ’389 application’s room temperature of 18–25oC refers to the ambient temperature, not the temperature of the chilled 

material in the column. J.A. 1350–53, 1547–48. Nonetheless, the PTAB and now my colleagues hold that this “room 

temperature” range anticipates the ’799 patent’s chilled 

range of 10oC–18oC, ignoring the significantly different results in the recited ranges. The general understanding of 

room temperature is in the range of 21oC–25oC (69oF 

–77oF), as the experts for both sides testified. J.A. 1346–

50, 1599–1600. The ’799 patent specification shows 15±3oC 

as the basis for the 18oC limit in the claims. No reference 

contemplates or suggests or hints that chilling below room 

temperature for the affinity chromatographic process 

 

3 International Patent Application Publication No.

WO 95/22389 A1, J.A. 508–54 (“WO ’389”).

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 22 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 7

would eliminate the contaminating leaching of the protein A.

WO ’389’s lower edge of 18oC does not anticipate the 

chilled range of 10oC–18oC. The abutment at 18oC between 

the claimed chilled temperature range and room temperature does not produce anticipation of the lower range. Anticipation requires that the same invention, including all 

claim limitations, was previously described. Nidec Motor 

Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 

1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that precedent “does not 

permit the Board to fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision 

them.”). Neither party’s expert testified that the prior art 

showed that lowering the temperature below the norm of 

protein A affinity chromatography would eliminate leaching of protein A.

It was conceded that no reference showed or suggested 

the solution that was here discovered, and no expert witness acknowledged this practice. Hospira’s expert testified:

Q. . . . Are you aware of anyone prior to July of 

2003 doing protein A chromatography at a reduced 

temperature using a jacketed column and/or a 

chilling tank?

A. I have not seen that.

J.A. 1667–68.

The ’799 patent specification describes that by conducting the affinity chromatography in the range of 10oC–18oC, 

substantially all of the leaching of protein A is prevented. 

However, my colleagues hold that the mention of 18oC as 

the lower boundary of room temperature anticipates the 

claimed range of 10oC–18oC—and that this ends the inquiry. That is not the law of anticipation. An anticipating 

reference must describe the entirety of the claimed subject 

matter. “Anticipation is established when ‘one skilled in 

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 23 Filed: 01/10/2020
8 GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.

the art would reasonably understand or infer from the 

prior art reference’s teaching that every claim [limitation] 

was disclosed in that single reference.’” CRFD Research, 

Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 

Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., 

Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192–93 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

My colleagues nonetheless find the mention of a “room 

temperature” lower edge of 18oC in the 18–25oC range to be

a fatal anticipation of the claimed 10oC–18oC range, despite

the absence of identity of these ranges, despite the different 

results at the lower range, and despite the significance of 

the purity of the eluted antibody.

Precedent does not support my colleagues’ finding of 

anticipation, for precedent requires that to anticipate, the 

prior art must describe the same invention. See id.; King 

Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (“[A] claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single 

prior art reference.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The prior art does not show the 10oC–18oC range, and the 

specification supports the distinction with description of 

the different characteristics of the cooled material. Nothing in the prior art suggested that the leaching of protein 

A could be prevented by lowering the temperature, with no 

adverse effect on the efficacy of the affinity purification, 

and no loss of the purified antibody.

The experts for both sides agreed that the prior art does

not show or suggest that this 10oC–18oC temperature range 

would produce the favorable results that were achieved. 

Contrary to my colleagues’ reasoning, this is not simply a 

matter of selecting the optimum temperature within a 

taught temperature range for conducting a known procedure. Neither the cooled temperature range nor the result

of cooling the material subjected to protein A affinity chromatography is shown or suggested in the prior art.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 24 Filed: 01/10/2020
GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. 9

Nor is the question whether it would be easy to experiment at varying temperatures, as my colleagues suggest. 

Maj. Op. at 13 (“The Board reasonably found that a skilled 

artisan would have been motivated to optimize the temperature given the teachings of the prior art, and that given 

the ease with which temperature can be varied, finding an 

optimal temperature range would have been nothing more 

than routine experimentation.”). However, the question is

not whether it would have been easy to cool the material to 

the 10oC–18oC range; the question is whether it would have 

been obvious to do so. Contrary to the Board’s and the 

court’s view, this is not a matter of optimizing a known procedure to obtain a known result; for it was not known that 

cooling the material for chromatography would avoid contamination of the purified antibody with leached protein A.

The Board’s holding that the ’799 method is anticipated 

by van Sommeren and WO ’389 is devoid of support by substantial evidence, for the only evidence was that these are 

different procedures conducted under different conditions 

to achieve different purposes.

The Board and this court err in holding the ’799 patent 

claims invalid on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness, for no prior art shows or suggests the claimed procedure.

Case: 18-1933 Document: 68 Page: 25 Filed: 01/10/2020