throbber
No. 04-607
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,
`DBA LABCORP, PETITIONER
`v.
`METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
`
`PAUL D. CLEMENT
`Solicitor General
`Counsel of Record
`PETER D. KEISLER
`Assistant Attorney General
`THOMAS G. HUNGAR
`Deputy Solicitor General
`DARYL JOSEFFER
`Assistant to the Solicitor
`General
`ANTHONY J. STEINMEYER
`JEFFREY CLAIR
`Attorneys
`Department of Justice
`Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
`(202) 514-2217
`
`JAMES A. TOUPIN
`General Counsel
`JOHN M. WHEALAN
`Deputy General Counsel
`STEPHEN WALSH
`RAYMOND T. CHEN
`Associate Solicitors
`Patent and Trademark Office
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`

`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`This Court granted the petition for a writ of certio-
`rari limited to question three as presented in the
`petition, which asks: Whether a method patent setting
`forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step
`directing a party simply to “correlat[e]” test results can
`validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific rela-
`tionship used in medical treatment such that any doctor
`necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking
`about the relationship after looking at a test result.
`
`(I)
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Interest of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Statement
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Summary of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`Argument:
`A.
`The patent specification satisfies the requirements
`of 35 U.S.C. 112 by describing, enabling, and
`claiming the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`B. Whether the patent claim is invalid because it
`claims a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or
`abstract idea is not fairly included in the question
`presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`The patent claim appears to claim all substantial
`practical applications of the natural relationship
`that are revealed by the limited record before the
`Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`The patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 if it
`claims assay methods that were already included in
`the prior art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`D.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,
`534 U.S. 103 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555
`(1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`(II)
`
`

`
`IV
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases–Continued:
`Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257
`(1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
`489 U.S. 141 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.,
`185 U.S. 403 (1902) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) . . . . . . . 18, 19
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175
`(1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356 (1822) . . . . . . 8, 9, 11
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki
`Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S.
`127 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
`General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.,
`304 U.S. 364 (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63
`(1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
`336 U.S. 271 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470
`(1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156
`(1852) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
`
`

`
`V
`
`Page
`
`Cases–Continued:
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 12
`Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am.,
`306 U.S. 86 (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419 (1891) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870
`(Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1100
`(1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d
`1306 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 982
`(2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 12
`O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1853)
`. . . . . 18, 19
`Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc.,
` 12
`424 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) . . . . . . 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
`Pfaff v. Wells Elec., 525 U.S. 55 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 28
`Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.)
`498 (1874) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1880) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`Toma, In re, 575 F.2d 872 (C.C.P.A. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`Tyler v. City of Boston, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 327 (1868) . . . . . . 8
`United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.,
`317 U.S. 228 (1942)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`
`

`
`VI
`
`Cases–Continued:
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
` 13
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`Page
`
`Constitution, statutes, and rules:
`U.S. Const.:
`Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Patent Act of 1793, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Patent Act of 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`35 U.S.C. 100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`35 U.S.C. 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`35 U.S.C. 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 28, 29, 30
`35 U.S.C. 102(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`35 U.S.C. 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18
`35 U.S.C. 282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`Sup. Ct. R.:
`Rule 14.1(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`Rule 15.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`
`Miscellaneous:
`H.R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952) . . . . . . . . . 18
`PTO:
`Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applica-
`cations Under the 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1 “Written
`Description” Requirement, 66 Fed. Reg. 1099
`(2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 12
`
`
`
`

`
`VII
`
`Miscellaneous—Continued:
`Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent
`Applications for Patent Subject Matter
`Eligibility, 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (Nov. 22,
`2005)<http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week
`47/OG/TOC.htm#ref13>
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21
`S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952)
`. . . . . . . . . . . 18
`
`Page
`
`

`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`No. 04-607
`LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,
`DBA LABCORP, PETITIONER
`v.
`METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
`
`INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
`This case concerns the written description, enable-
`ment, and definiteness requirements of the Patent Act,
`and the question presented might also be construed to
`ask whether claimed inventions that would monopolize
`basic scientific relationships are patentable subject mat-
`ter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(PTO), which is “responsible for the granting and issu-
`ing of patents,” 35 U.S.C. 2(a)(1), has an interest in the
`resolution of such questions. At the invitation of the
`Court, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae at
`the petition stage of this case.
`STATEMENT
`1. Deficiencies in two B vitamins, cobalamin and fo-
`late, can cause serious illnesses. Once detected, how-
`ever, a deficiency can be treated with vitamin supple-
`ments. Scientific researchers at University Patents
`
`(1)
`
`

`
`2
`
`Inc., the predecessor of respondent Competitive Tech-
`nologies, Inc. (CTI), determined that elevated levels of
`total homocysteine, an amino acid, are closely associated
`with deficiencies in cobalamin or folate. The research-
`ers applied for and received a patent on methods for
`assaying samples of body fluids or tissues to determine
`total homocysteine levels, as well as methods for diag-
`nosing cobalamin or folate deficiency based on elevated
`total homocysteine levels. Pet. App. 2a-3a. The patent
`claim at issue here, claim 13 of United States Patent No.
`4,940,658 (the ’658 patent), identifies:
`A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or
`folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps
`of:
`
`assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total
`homocysteine; and
`correlating an elevated level of total homocy-
`steine in said body fluid with a deficiency of co-
`balamin or folate.
`Pet. App. 3a; Supp. App. (S.A.) 30.
`CTI licensed the ’658 patent to respondent Metabo-
`lite Laboratories, Inc., which in turn sub-licensed the
`patent to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Labo-
`ratory Corporation of America Holdings. Physicians
`ordered total homocysteine assays from petitioner,
`which initially performed the assays under its sub-li-
`cense by using an assay method set forth in the patent.
`In 1998, however, petitioner began using a different as-
`say method and stopped paying royalties to Metabolite.
`Respondents then filed suit against petitioner for induc-
`ing patent infringement by the physicians, contributory
`infringement, and breach of contract. Pet. App. 3a-4a.
`
`

`
`3
`
`2. The district court submitted the case to a jury,
`which found claim 13 of the ’658 patent valid; found peti-
`tioner liable for induced infringement, contributory in-
`fringement, and breach of contract; and found that peti-
`tioner’s infringement was willful. The jury assessed
`damages of approximately $1 million for infringement
`and $3.7 million for breach of contract. The district
`court entered judgment based on the jury verdict, de-
`nied petitioner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law,
`and doubled the jury’s infringement award based on the
`finding of willfulness. See Pet. App. 3a-4a, 34a-39a. The
`court permanently enjoined petitioner from performing
`“any homocysteine-only test.” Id . at 36a (citation omit-
`ted).
`3. a. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-
`27a. Noting that the parties focused “solely on * * *
`the correlating step” of claim 13, the court of appeals
`stressed that it did “not address the assaying step.” Id.
`at 13a & n.1. “In essence,” the court held, “‘correlating’
`means to relate the presence of an elevated total
`homocysteine level to either a cobalamin or folate defi-
`ciency, or both * * *, and also to relate the absence of
`an elevated total homocysteine level to a deficiency in
`neither.” Id . at 12a.
`Because “[t]he record shows that physicians order
`assays and correlate the results of those assays,” the
`court of appeals held that physicians who ordered assays
`from petitioner after petitioner stopped making royalty
`payments directly infringed the patent. Pet. App. 13a.
`The court further concluded that substantial evidence
`supports the jury’s finding that petitioner intended to
`induce such infringement because petitioner provided
`total homocysteine assays to physicians and encouraged
`the use of such assays to detect cobalamin and folate
`
`

`
`4
`
`deficiency. Id. at 14a-15a. Because it upheld the finding
`of induced infringement, the court of appeals did not
`review the jury’s finding of contributory infringement.
`Id . at 15a.
`The court of appeals rejected petitioner’s contentions
`that claim 13 is invalid on various grounds—viz, indefi-
`niteness, lack of written description, non-enablement,
`anticipation, and obviousness. Pet. App. 15a-21a. Be-
`cause “[a] patent issued from [PTO] bears the presump-
`tion of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282,” the court ex-
`plained that “[a]n accused infringer * * * must prove
`patent invalidity under the clear and convincing eviden-
`tiary standard.” Id . at 15a.
`In the Federal Circuit’s view, petitioner did not over-
`come the presumption of validity. Because claim 13 has
`a discernible meaning, the court held that it is not indef-
`inite. Pet. App. 16a. The court concluded that the pat-
`ent specification provides an adequate written descrip-
`tion because “[t]he record is replete with evidentiary
`support that * * * persons of ordinary skill in the art
`* * * understood from the specification that the ’658 pat-
`ent inventors possessed the ‘correlating’ step at the time
`they filed the patent application.” Id . at 17a.
`Similarly, the court determined that the patent speci-
`fication enabled the invention by disclosing all of the
`necessary steps. Pet. App. 17a-18a. The court explained
`that “the correlating step is well within the knowledge
`of one of skill in this art” because it is “a simple conclu-
`sion that a cobalamin/folate deficiency exists vel non
`based on the assaying step.” Id . at 18a. And because
`the prior art in the record did not specifically disclose
`that total homocysteine is correlated with cobalamin or
`folate deficiency, the court further concluded that claim
`13 was neither anticipated by the prior art nor obvious.
`
`

`
`5
`
`Id . at 18a-20a. Finally, the court held that the district
`court’s injunction barring petitioner from performing
`“any homocysteine-only test” is not overbroad because
`it “simply addresses [petitioner’s] specific acts constitut-
`ing indirect infringement.” Id. at 26a-27a (citation omit-
`ted).
`b. Judge Schall concurred in part and dissented in
`part. Pet. App. 28a-33a. He “agree[d] with the major-
`ity’s conclusions with respect to validity” of claim 13, but
`concluded that the claim is infringed only when a test
`reveals elevated levels of total homocysteine, not when
`it reveals normal or low levels. Id . at 28a, 30a.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The patent specification at issue here satisfies the
`enablement, written description, and definiteness re-
`quirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The specification ade-
`quately enables and describes the claimed method by
`explaining how it works and how to perform it, and by
`including examples demonstrating that the patent appli-
`cants had performed the method. The claim is also suffi-
`ciently definite because its bounds are marked with pre-
`cision, such that a person skilled in the art would under-
`stand whether any given method infringed the claim.
`Although petitioner contends (Pet. 24-25) that the speci-
`fication does not adequately describe the claim’s “corre-
`lating” step, the court of appeals construed that step to
`be “a simple conclusion that a cobalamin/folate defi-
`ciency exists vel non based on the assaying step.” Pet.
`App. 18a.
`Petitioner’s contention (Pet. 23) that holding claim 13
`valid would mean that “parties could claim patent mo-
`nopolies over basic scientific facts” confuses the Section
`112 disclosure and drafting requirements with the Pat-
`
`

`
`6
`
`ent Act’s separate limitations on the subject matter eli-
`gible for patent protection. Although laws of nature,
`natural phenomena, and abstract
`ideas are not
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101, petitioner did not con-
`tend in the lower courts that the patent claim is invalid
`under Section 101. Nor does the question presented in
`this Court fairly include that question. Instead, the
`question presented, construed in light of the arguments
`set forth in the body of the petition and in the courts
`below, asserts only that a consequence of affirming the
`jury’s verdict on the Section 112 issues would be to
`grant a monopoly over a scientific relationship. Any
`such consequence, however, would flow from petitioner’s
`failure to raise a Section 101 claim, not from any error
`in applying Section 112.
`If the Court nonetheless concludes that the question
`presented fairly encompasses a Section 101 challenge, a
`remand would be appropriate. The court of appeals’
`claim construction, the jury’s findings, and the relief
`awarded all suggest that any use of a total homocysteine
`assay infringes claim 13, because doctors who review
`such assays can be presumed to perform mental correla-
`tions of the results with cobalamin or folate deficiencies
`or the absence thereof, even if they ordered the assays
`for a different reason. So construed, claim 13 appears
`impermissibly to encompass all “substantial practical
`application[s]” of the natural relationship that can be
`identified by reference to the limited record presently
`before the Court. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-
`72 (1972). Because petitioner did not raise a Section 101
`challenge in the lower courts, however, respondents had
`no opportunity to create a full record on that issue. A
`remand for further evidentiary proceedings would
`
`

`
`7
`
`therefore be appropriate if the Court reached the Sec-
`tion 101 issue.
`Claim 13 also appears to be invalid as anticipated by
`the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102. The court of appeals’
`determination that any use of a total homocysteine assay
`infringes the patent appears to have the effect of imper-
`missibly removing existing assay methods from the pub-
`lic domain. Like the Section 101 issue, however, that
`question is not fairly included in the question presented.
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. THE PATENT SPECIFICATION SATISFIES THE RE-
`QUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. 112 BY DESCRIBING, EN-
`ABLING, AND CLAIMING THE METHOD
`
`The question presented asks (Pet. i) whether a pat-
`ent claim “setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and
`non-enabling step” is invalid. That question refers to
`Section 112 of the Patent Act, which requires that a pat-
`ent specification contain “a written description of the
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and
`using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art * * * to make and
`use the same.” 35 U.S.C. 112. Further, “[t]he specifica-
`tion shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
`which the applicant regards as his invention.” Ibid.
`Section 112 thus imposes three relevant require-
`ments. First, the specification must contain a written
`description of the invention. Second, the specification
`must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use
`the invention. Third, the patent claim must identify with
`definiteness the exact scope of the claimed invention.
`Because the ’658 patent was issued by PTO, it is “pre-
`
`

`
`8
`
`sumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. 282. Petitioner’s arguments
`under Section 112 do not overcome that presumption.
`1. a. The enablement and written description re-
`quirements are related but distinct. “The enablement
`requirement is satisfied when one skilled in the art, af-
`ter reading the specification, could practice the claimed
`invention without undue experimentation.” AK Steel
`Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed. Cir.
`2003); accord PTO, Guidelines for Examination of Pat-
`ent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1 “Written
`Description” Requirement (PTO 112 Guidelines), 66
`Fed. Reg. 1099, 1103 (2001); see Tyler v. City of Boston,
`74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 327, 330 (1868) (construing analogous
`requirement in earlier patent statute to require that a
`patent “state the component parts of the new manufac-
`ture claimed with clearness and precision, and not leave
`the person attempting to use the discovery to find it out
`‘by experiment’”). Enablement is an essential aspect of
`the basic quid pro quo that underlies a patent grant,
`because it ensures that the invention is immediately
`added to the storehouse of public knowledge and that
`the public will receive unlimited use of the invention
`after patent protection expires. See Kewanee Oil Co. v.
`Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 480-481 (1974); Evans v.
`Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356, 433-434 (1822).
`In addition to enabling the invention, the specifica-
`tion must contain a “written description of the inven-
`tion,” 35 U.S.C. 112, that “convey[s] to a person of skill
`in the art that the patentee had possession of the
`claimed invention at the time of the application, i.e., that
`the patentee invented what is claimed.” LizardTech,
`Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336,
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Pet. App. 17a; PTO 112 Guide-
`lines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1104. “An applicant shows posses-
`
`

`
`9
`
`sion of the claimed invention by describing the claimed
`invention with all of its limitations using such descrip-
`tive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and
`formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.”
`PTO 112 Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1104. Demonstrat-
`ing that an invention has been reduced to practice is one
`such way of showing possession, id . at 1104, 1107-1108
`n.6, although an invention need not have been reduced
`to practice in order for it to be patentable, Pfaff v. Wells
`Elec., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 60-61 (1998). In addition to en-
`suring that the claimant has invented and possessed the
`claimed subject matter, the written description require-
`ment helps to prevent inventors from later asserting
`that they invented more than they in fact did. See
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d
`1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 982 (2003);
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561, 1563
`(Fed. Cir. 1991); see generally Evans, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat)
`at 434-435.
`As the court of appeals explained, the enablement
`and written description requirements are considered
`from the perspective of one skilled in the art. Pet. App.
`17a, 18a; see, e.g., Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707,
`728 (1880); Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580, 585-586
`(1881). In this case, the parties agreed, and the jury was
`instructed, that such a person would have “a medical
`degree and experience in researching the amino acid
`homocysteine and its relationship to diseases.” Pet.
`App. 7a (citation omitted).
`b. Especially from the perspective of such a person,
`the patent specification easily satisfies the enablement
`and written description requirements by explaining pre-
`cisely how to perform the claimed method and demon-
`strating that the applicants had in fact performed it.
`
`

`
`10
`
`The specification explains that “[i]t has now been discov-
`ered that an elevated level of total homocysteine in tis-
`sues of warmblooded animals correlates both with
`cobalamin deficiency and with folic acid deficiency; an
`animal with elevated levels of total homocysteine is
`likely to have one or both deficiencies.” S.A. 11. The
`specification goes on to disclose both how to assay for
`total homocysteine and how to correlate elevated levels
`of total homocysteine with deficiencies in the B vitamins.
`See, e.g., S.A. 12-14.
`The specification explains that “[s]uitable assays for
`this purpose include any assays capable of determining
`levels of homocysteine in body tissues, preferably body
`fluids.” S.A. 12. Although petitioner erroneously con-
`tends (Pet. 23) that “[n]either the claim nor the specifi-
`cation says anything about how one is to conduct the
`assay,” the specification describes “several different
`known assays suitable for use in determining levels of
`homocysteine in urine or blood,” S.A. 12, as well as a
`new assay method claimed in the ’658 patent, S.A. 12-14.
`The specification also includes two detailed examples
`that describe how the applicants measured homocy-
`steine using different assay methods. See S.A. 15-20.
`Thus, the specification leaves no doubt that the appli-
`cants had undertaken the assay step, and it simulta-
`neously enables others skilled in the art to undertake
`that step by showing them how to do so.
`The same is true of the correlation step. The specifi-
`cation discloses that “[t]he normal range for homocy-
`steine in human serum is from about 7 to about 22
`:mol/liter, and in human urine is from about 1 to about
`20 :mol/liter. Homocysteine levels above these ranges
`are indicative of cobalamin and/or folate deficiency; the
`higher the level, the stronger the indication.” S.A. 14.
`
`

`
`11
`
`The specification then provides an example of tests con-
`ducted by the applicants in which total homocysteine
`levels were elevated above normal levels for 99% of the
`patients with cobalamin deficiency and 95% of those with
`folate deficiency. S.A. 28.
`Petitioner therefore errs in contending (Pet. 24-25)
`that the specification does not “describe what a practi-
`tioner must do to perform the active ‘correlating’ step.”
`As the court of appeals construed the claim, “[t]he corre-
`lating step is a simple conclusion that a cobalamin/ folate
`deficiency exists vel non based on the assaying step.”
`Pet. App. 18a; see id . at 8a (“The claim only requires
`association of homocysteine levels with vitamin deficien-
`cies. It requires no further correlation to confirm the
`relationship.”).
`Although petitioner protests (Pet. 24) that “[a]ll the
`patent tells a prospective practitioner is that a person
`with an elevated homocysteine level may have a vitamin
`deficiency,” the mere fact that the claimed detecting
`method may not always be accurate does not render it
`invalid under Section 112. The written description and
`enablement inquiries focus on the disclosure and posses-
`sion of the invention, not the extent of its utility. And
`notwithstanding petitioner’s criticisms, moreover, the
`patent claim appears to have substantial utility. The
`court of appeals explained that the claimed method pre-
`dicts cobalamin or folate deficiency “relatively accu-
`rately.” Pet. App. 11a; see S.A. 28.
`c. In any event, the written description and enable-
`ment issues in this case are primarily factual. This
`Court long ago stated that analogous requirements in
`the Patent Act of 1793, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318, were
`“matter[s] of fact for the jury, and not of law for the de-
`cision of the Court.” Evans, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) at 428.
`
`

`
`12
`
`Under the modern patent statutes, the Federal Circuit
`treats the adequacy of a written description as a ques-
`tion of fact and enablement as a question of law based on
`subsidiary findings of fact. Moba, 325 F.3d at 1319,
`1321; Pet. App. 4a-5a.
`Here, the jury found that the specification satisfied
`both the enablement and written description require-
`ments, J.A. 396-397, the district court denied peti-
`tioner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, Pet.
`App. 34a-35a, and the Federal Circuit affirmed based in
`part on its review of the record, see, e.g., id . at 17a
`(“The record is replete with evidentiary support that
`* * * persons of ordinary skill in the art * * * understood
`from the specification that the ’658 patent inventors pos-
`sessed the ‘correlating’ step.”). This Court does not or-
`dinarily disturb such fact-specific determinations, see
`generally Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods.
`Co., 336 U.S. 271, 275 (1949), and there is no reason to
`upset the jury’s verdict on the enablement and written
`description questions here.1
`
`1 There is some disagreement among the Federal Circuit’s decisions
`regarding whether the written description requirement is satisfied by
`evidence the inventor possessed the invention, or whether some further
`description of the invention may be required in some circumstances.
`See, e.g., Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002). PTO has interpreted the written description requirement
`to focus solely on possession, see PTO 112 Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at
`1102, 1104, and the Federal Circuit’s recent cases appear to adopt that
`view, see, e.g., LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1345; Pandrol USA, LP v.
`Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 424 F.3d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pet. App.
`17a. Any disagreement on that point is not relevant here, however,
`because the specification clearly describes the claimed method, its
`allegedly novel aspects, and the extent to which it differs from the prior
`art disclosed in the specification, and thus satisfies either standard. See
`S.A. 10-14; pp. 10-11, supra.
`
`

`
`13
`
`2. While the enablement and written description
`requirements focus on the content of the patent specifi-
`cation, the definiteness requirement directs that the
`patent claim must “particularly point[] out and distinctly
`claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards
`as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. 112. “It has long been un-
`derstood that a patent must describe the exact scope of
`an invention and its manufacture to ‘secure to [the pat-
`entee] all to which he is entitled, [and] to apprise the
`public of what is still open to them.’” Markman v.
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)
`(quoting McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424
`(1891)); see Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
`Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 731 (2002).
`Because the patent claim defines the scope of the
`patent grant, Markman, 517 U.S. at 373, compliance
`with the definiteness requirement turns on whether the
`claim makes “[t]he limits of the patent” known. General
`Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 369
`(1938); accord United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith
`Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232, 236 (1942). In assessing definite-
`ness, a claim must be read in light of the specification
`and the knowledge of a person skilled in the art. Carne-
`gie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 432, 437
`(1902). Thus, “[t]he test for definiteness is whether one
`skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the
`claim when read in light of the specification.” Miles
`Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
`1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1100 (1994).2
`
`2 Although General Electric, United Carbon, and Carnegie Steel
`interpreted the definiteness requirement of the Patent Act of 1870, ch.
`230, 16 Stat. 198, the modern version of Section 112 “is not materially
`different from the 1870 Act with regard to claiming.” Warner-Jen-
`kinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 26 (1997). Accord-
`
`

`
`14
`
`Especially when read by a person skilled in the art in
`light of the specification, claim 13 satisfies the definite-
`ness requirement because it marks the boundaries of the
`patent claim with precision. The claim is infringed only
`if a person “assay[s] a body fluid for an elevated level of
`total homocysteine,” and then “correlat[es] an elevated
`level of total homocysteine in said body fluid with a defi-
`ciency of cobalamin or folate.” S.A. 30. Although that
`language is undeniably sweeping, it is not unclear. As
`the court of appeals held, “[t]he claim * * * provides that
`if the assay discloses
`‘an elevated level of total
`homocysteine,’ the physician determines whether there
`is a cobalamin or folate deficiency by ‘correlating,’ i.e.,
`comparing the elevated level with the normal
`homocysteine level.” Pet. App. 12a (quoting S.A. 30);
`see p. 11, supra.
`3. Petitioner argues (Pet. 23) that if claim 13 sati

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket