UK: Can "Reach-through" Claims be Enforced? The US Federal Court Decision in University Of Rochester v G. D. Searle & Co., Inc et al.

Last Updated: 11 July 2003
Article by Paul Cole
Non-steroidal aspirin-like drugs act by inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, but suffer from side effects, in particular gastrointestinal bleeding which has been responsible for some 16,000 deaths annually in the US consequent on their long-term use. It is now known that aspirin inhibits the action of two closely related enzymes, one of which called COX-1 is responsible for gastrointestinal protection and the other of which called COX-2 releases substances responsible for pain and inflammation.

There is room for controversy about who should be acknowledged as the discoverer of COX-2 and its structure and physiological role. Professor Philip Neederman in St Louis, USA has been credited with having first hypothesized that there are two COX enzymes. Professor Daniel Simmons of Brigham Young University, Utah claims to have discovered COX-2 in 1989 and published his team’s findings in April 19911. However, Dr Donald A. Young at the University of Rochester (the team involved in the present dispute) claimed to have built on the work of the Simmons team and to have described in successive US patent applications dating back to 22nd September 1992:

  • That there are two COX (PGHS) genes, one of which was constitutively expressed and is called COX-1 and the other of which is responsive to regulatory control and is called COX-2.
  • That COX-2 is a unique isoform of cyclooxygenase which in contrast to COX-1 is dramatically up-regulated by growth factors, tissue injury and proinflammatory cytokines, and plays a major role in peripheral inflammation.
  • The cDNA and predicted amino acid sequence of COX-2.

Based on these discoveries the Rochester team produced cell lines stably expressing COX-2, which could be used to provide a simple in vitro screen for new drugs that would inhibit inflammation and which were predicted to be free from side effects.

Compounds that acted as COX-2 inhibitors were in existence as of September 1992 although they had, according to the University, not been specifically disclosed for human use2. For example, EP-A-0317332 (Taisho Pharma) described and claimed sulfonanilide compounds that showed anti-inflammatory, antipyretic and analgesic effects combined with a decrease in gastrointestinal side effects. Amongst these was a compound NS-398 which has been widely used in experimental work e.g. in the rat, but which has not been developed for clinical use. The activity of this compound was acknowledged by the Rochester team in their US patent 6048850 (the patent in issue) which states: "The fact that induced cyclooxygenase activity is blocked by NS-398, a specific inhibitor of PGHS-2, confirms that induction of PGHS-2 is responsible for increased prostaglandin production in cytokine-treated astrocytes".

The Rochester inventors did not consider that what they had invented was merely a research tool, and they wished to "reach-through" to claim the clinically useful compounds that resulted from their discoveries. The main claim of their patent read:

"A method for selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 [COX-2] activity in a human host, comprising administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene in a human host in need of such treatment."

The patent was granted on 11th April 2000, and legal proceedings against Searle and Pfizer were started on that day. On the following day the University announced in a press release that they had been awarded a pioneering patent for the use of the entire class of COX-2 inhibitors that included the blockbuster drugs Celebrex and Vioxx, and that over the 17-year life of the patent the royalty payments could yield the University billions of dollars, making it the most lucrative pharmaceutical patent in history.

The hopes of the University received a potentially fatal setback following an application by the defendants for summary judgment on the grounds of lack of written description and non-enablement because the patent disclosed no selective COX-2 inhibitor and finding such compounds required further empirical research.

In its opinion3 the US District Court accepted the defendant’s arguments. It explained that although the University may have laid the groundwork for the later invention of COX-2 inhibitors, they had not taken the last critical step of isolating such a compound or developing a process by which a skilled person would be directly lead to such a compound, and that even if the inventors were reasonably certain that the necessary compound existed and could eventually be found, there was no showing in the patent that they knew this to be a fact. The Court summarised its conclusions as regards written description4 in the following passage:

"In effect, then, the ‘850 patent claims a method that cannot be practiced until one discovers a compound that was not in the possession of, or known to, the inventors themselves. Putting the claimed method into practice awaited someone actually discovering a necessary component of the invention. In some ways, this is reminiscent of the search for the so-called "philosopher’s stone," eagerly sought after by medieval alchemists, which supposedly would transmute lead into gold. While the Court does not mean to suggest that the inventors’ significant work in this field is on a par with alchemy, the fact remains that without the compound called for in the patent, the inventors could no more be said to have possessed the complete invention claimed by the ‘850 patent than the alchemists possessed a method of turning base metals into gold."

The court’s interest, if not fascination, with the history of the philosopher’s stone is further demonstrated by the following footnoted passage:

"A patent for the philosopher’s stone was actually issued during the reign of Edward III. "The invention we now regard as a superstition, but the application was referred by the King to a commission, which reported favorably upon it, and the patent issued apparently upon what we now regard as sound doctrine, that the invention was new and useful." McKeever v. United States, 14 Ct.Cl. 396 (1878). It is not apparent whether the patentee claimed actually to possess the stone, or whether he simply described it in terms of its function, in the hope that he would be entitled to royalties should it ever be discovered."

The Court further held that the patent was non-enabling because it provided little guidance about selecting a particular compound or narrowing the range of candidates, with the result that a suitable compound could not be found without undue experimentation. Although the need for trial and error experimentation was not per se decisive, there had to be reasonable detail to enable members of the public to understand and carry out the invention and tossing out the mere germ of an idea was not enough5. Searle had started a screening program in August 1992, and by May 1993 had screened some 600 compounds and identified a number of selective COX-2 inhibitors, but the Court held that this merely demonstrated that considerable research was necessary to turn the claimed invention into reality. Although not cited in the judgment, a significant paper by Kunin et al6 foreshadowed the conclusion reached by the Court and expresses a firm view at a senior level within the USPTO that reach-through claims should not be allowed.

What might be said in support of the University on appeal? A major weakness in their position is that the reference in claim 1 to "a human host" is essential to distinguish their method from previous proposals such as the NS-398 compound. Even if an appellate Court could be persuaded that the task of finding some compounds that are active in the sense that they selectively inhibit COX-2 was within routine skill once COX-2 had been isolated and its structure and physiological role had become known, it might reasonably refuse to say that the further task of identifying the subclass of active compounds that were safe to administer to humans was also routine. On the other hand, the discovery of COX-2 was a scientific breakthrough, not alchemy. The prediction that useful inhibitors would follow quickly upon the discovery of the enzyme proved true. It could reasonably be argued that subsequent events demonstrate the incorrectness of the Court’s view concerning non-enablement. The commercially successful compounds Celebrex and Vioxx appeared in the late 1990’s, which, in the timescale of the pharmaceutical industry, was rapid and it is therefore disingenuous to say that the necessary skills were lacking There is the further argument that the written description requirement should not be applied so strictly that the reward for discovering COX-2 inhibitors goes in its entirety to the discoverers of the active compounds and is not shared with the academic scientists whose breakthrough enabled those compounds to be discovered. Such arguments are unlikely to appeal to the CAFC in the existing state of US case law, but if the case were taken up by the Supreme Court7 might a less onerous view of what patent law should demand of researchers in academic institutions give rise to a different result?

Footnotes

1 Xie et al., Proc. Nat’l. Acad. Sci. USA, 1991, 2692-2696 (April 1991), see also the deposited sequence at AAA58433.

2 The early development of COX-2 inhibitors is extensively discussed in the UK case Monsanto v Merck [2000] RPC 77 (HC), [2000] RPC 709 (CA) which concerns inter alia non-enablement of a patent claiming a Markush group of compounds, some of whose members had been experimentally demonstrated not to be selective COX-2 inhibitors as alleged in the specification.

3 Unites States District Court, Western District of New York, 00-CV-616L, Larimer J. 5th March 2003, downloadable from http://www.nywd.uscourts.gov/decision/20030305_00cv6161_larimer.pdf.

4 For the written description requirement in biotechnology patents see: Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998); Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2002), rehearing 296 F.3d 1316. Cases found non-persuasive because the patent specification contained enough information to lead a skilled person to the claimed compound included: Union Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1183 (2001); In re Herscher, 591 F.2d 693 (C.C.P.A. 1979), and In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

5 See, inter alia: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 963 (1997); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-40 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc. ("Calgene"), 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir.).

6 Stephen G. Kunin, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy at the USPTO, Mark Nagumo, Administrative Patent Judge in the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Brian Stanton, Technology Center 1600 Practice Specialist , Linda S. Therkorn, Patent Examination Policy Advisor, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitor, Office of General Counsel at the USPTO, American University Law Review, 51, 609-638, 2002. The article can be downloaded from
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/51/Kunin.pdf.

7 Review of CAFC decisions by the Supreme Court is rare. However, there may be an argument that the Court should review this case because the question whether and in what circumstances reach-through claims are allowable affects the balance of risks and rewards as between academic and industrial research over an important range of technologies.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. 

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions