`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`ALNYLAM
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`V.
`PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA &
`UPJOHN CO. LLC, BIONTECH
`SE, and BIONTECH
`MANUFACTURING GMBH,
`Defendants.
`Civil Action No. 22-336-CFC
`( consolidated)
`ORDER
`Pending before me is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 filed by Defendants Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC,
`BioNTech SE, and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH. D.I. 289.
`In support of their motion, Defendants argue first that three of the thirteen
`asserted claims are invalid for improper dependency under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
`because I "effectively nullif[ied]" the three claims in the Revised Memorandum
`Opinion I issued on September 9, 2024 (D.1. 248). D.I. 290 at 1, 5 (alteration in
`the original). I did not, however, nullify any claims in the Revised Memorandum
`Opinion.
`Case 1:22-cv-00336-CFC Document 447 Filed 04/29/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants next argue that all the asse1ied claims are invalid for lack of
`adequate written description because the "reasoning underlying [my] construction"
`of "head group" in the Revised Memorandum Opinion "necessarily renders th[ e]
`claims invalid under§ l 12(a) as well." D.I. 290 at 6-8. I did not, howe ver, make
`a finding of fact in the Revised Memorandum Opinion that the written description
`of the asserted patents did not "reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that
`the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`Accord ingly, Defendants are not "entitled to judgment as a matter of law"
`that all asserted claims are invalid. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Twenty-ninth day of Apr il in
`2025, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §
`112 (D.I. 289) is DENIED.
`~GE
`2
`Case 1:22-cv-00336-CFC Document 447 Filed 04/29/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 55889
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
