Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Genetics Institute, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that best mode does not require a \guarantee that every aspect of the specification be precisely and universally reproducible\
• noting that whether alleged infringer’s new recombinant technology resulted in “specific activities and purity” otherwise unattainable might, if proven, provide sufficient grounds for invoking the reverse doctrine of equivalents
• holding that the term “at least about” was indefinite because the patent provided no guidance as to where the line should be drawn between the numerical value of the prior art cited in the prosecution history and the close numerical value in the patent
• holding “about 160,000 IU/AU” indefinite when “nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or prior art provides any indication as to what range . . . is cov- ered”
• holding that “when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated”
• suggesting application of the reverse doctrine on remand where- the defendant produced similar biological materials by a potentially radically new biotechnological process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).