Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 09/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BAXALTA INCORPORATED, BAXALTA GMBH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
GENENTECH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1461
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00509-TBD, Circuit
Judge Timothy B. Dyk.
______________________
Decided: September 20, 2023
______________________
WILLIAM R. PETERSON, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Houston, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also repre-
sented by MICHAEL J. ABERNATHY, CHRISTOPHER JOHN
BETTI, MARIA DOUKAS, KARON NICOLE FOWLER, Chicago,
IL; JULIE S. GOLDEMBERG, Philadelphia, PA.
ERIC ALAN STONE, Groombridge, Wu, Baughman &
Stone LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee.
Also represented by NICHOLAS P. GROOMBRIDGE, NAZ
WEHRLI, JOSEPHINE YOUNG.
______________________
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 09/20/2023
2 BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC.
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN,
Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Baxalta Inc. and Baxalta GmbH (collectively, Baxalta)
appeal the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware’s grant of summary judgment that claims 1–4,
19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 are invalid for lack
of enablement. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A
Blood clots are formed through a series of enzymatic
activations known as the coagulation cascade. ’590 patent
at 1:6–10. In a “key step” of the cascade, an enzyme known
as activated Factor VIII (Factor VIIIa) complexes with an-
other enzyme known as activated Factor IX (Factor IXa) to
activate Factor X. Id. at 1:17–19. Hemophilia A is a blood
clotting disorder where the activity of Factor VIII is func-
tionally absent, thereby impeding the coagulation cascade
and the body’s ability to effectively form blood clots. Id. at
1:19–27. Historically, Hemophilia A has been treated by
intravenously administering Factor VIII. Id. at 1:28–30.
However, approximately 20–30% of Hemophilia A patients
cannot benefit from this traditional treatment because
their bodies develop Factor VIII inhibitors (i.e., antibodies
against Factor VIII). Id. at 1:30–35.
Recognizing these drawbacks, the ’590 patent sought to
provide alternative means to treat Hemophilia A, particu-
larly in patients who develop Factor VIII inhibitors. Id. at
2:22–28. Such preparations comprise antibodies or anti-
body derivatives that bind to Factor IX/IXa to increase the
procoagulant activity of Factor IXa. Id. at 2:29–38. These
antibodies allow Factor IXa to activate Factor X in the ab-
sence of Factor VIII/VIIIa. Id. at 1:61–67, 2:39–44. Inde-
pendent claim 1 is representative and recites:
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 09/20/2023
BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC. 3
1. An isolated antibody or antibody fragment
thereof that binds Factor IX or Factor IXa and in-
creases the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa.
Id. at claim 1.
Antibodies are proteins that bind to antigens (foreign
molecules in the body). More specifically, an antibody is a
Y-shaped immunoglobulin molecule having a specific
amino acid sequence comprising two heavy chains and two
light chains. Each chain includes two regions: a variable
region and a constant region. The variable region—the
amino acid sequence at the tips of the “Y”—is the portion
of the chain that varies between antibodies of the same iso-
type. 1 The variable region contains complementarity-de-
termining regions (CDRs), which are the amino acid
sequences primarily responsible for the antibody’s binding
and functional properties. The remaining constant region
is identical across antibodies of the same isotype.
The inventors generated the antibodies claimed in the
’590 patent using a prior art method known as the hybrid-
oma technique. Id. at 9:62–10:37. This process involves
first immunizing mice with human Factor IX/IXa to gener-
ate anti-Factor IX/IXa antibody-secreting B-cells. Id. The
antibody-secreting B-cells are then removed and fused to
myeloma cells to create hybridomas that secrete anti-Fac-
tor IX/IXa antibodies.
The inventors performed four such hybridoma fusion
experiments. Id. at 10:11–13. Using routine techniques,
the inventors screened the candidate antibodies from the
four fusion experiments to determine whether the antibod-
ies bind to Factor IX/IXa and increase procoagulant activ-
ity, as claimed. Id. at 10:39–12:56. The inventors
1 Antibodies are grouped into five classes known as
“isotypes”: IgA, IgD, IgE, IgG, and IgM. “Ig” stands for im-
munoglobulin, and the following letter specifies the class.
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 09/20/2023
4 BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC.
discovered that only 1.6% of the thousands of screened an-
tibodies increased the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa.
J.A. 17684. The ’590 patent discloses the amino acid se-
quences of eleven antibodies that bind to Factor IX/IXa and
increase the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa. See ’590
patent at 12:36–49. These disclosed antibodies are all mon-
ospecific (i.e., bind to a single antigen) and monoclonal (i.e.,
produced by a single cell line). The written description of
the ’590 patent explains that a skilled artisan may use
well-known antibody engineering techniques to transform
the resulting antibody into different structural formats.
See id. at 6:15–7:50 (discussing “technically modified anti-
bodies”). For example, scientists can create “bispecific an-
tibodies” by combining a heavy and light chain of one
antibody with a heavy and light chain of a different anti-
body. In bispecific antibodies, unlike monospecific antibod-
ies, each arm binds to a different antigen. Id. at 7:32–34.
As another example, scientists can create “humanized an-
tibodies” in which animal CDRs are inserted into an other-
wise human antibody. Id. at 6:49–57.
B
Baxalta sued Genentech, Inc. alleging Genentech’s
Hemlibra® (emicizumab) product infringes the ’590 patent.
Emicizumab is a humanized bispecific antibody that binds
to Factor IXa with one arm and Factor X with the other
arm, thereby mimicking the function of Factor VIIIa. Fol-
lowing the district court’s construction of the claim terms
“antibody” and “antibody fragment” to exclude bispecific
antibodies, the parties stipulated to non-infringement sub-
ject to appeal.
On a prior appeal, we held the proper construction of
“antibody” was “an immunoglobulin molecule having a spe-
cific amino acid sequence comprising two heavy chains (H
chains) and two light chains (L chains),” and the proper
construction of “antibody fragment” was “a portion of an
antibody.” Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341,
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 09/20/2023
BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC. 5
1345–49 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Because the district court’s con-
struction erroneously excluded bispecific antibodies, we va-
cated the judgment of non-infringement and remanded for
further proceedings. Id. at 1349. On remand, Genentech
moved for summary judgment of, inter alia, invalidity of
claims 1–4, 19, and 20 for lack of enablement. The district
court granted summary judgment. Baxalta Inc. v. Genen-
tech, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 3d 595 (D. Del. 2022). Baxalta ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review summary judgment rulings under the law of
the regional circuit, here the Third Circuit. Junker v. Med.
Components, Inc., 25 F.4th 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Third Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment
de novo. Melrose, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 613 F.3d 380,
387 (3d Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate
when, drawing all reasonable inferences in the non-
movant’s favor, there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
A patent’s specification must describe the invention
and “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 which it pertains . . . to make
and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). As the Supreme
Court recently reaffirmed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, “the
specification must enable the full scope of the invention as
defined by its claims,” allowing for “a reasonable amount of
experimentation.” 598 U.S. 594, 610–12 (2023). In other
words, “the specification of a patent must teach those
skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the
claimed invention without undue experimentation.” Mag-
Sil Corp. v. Hitachi Glob. Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d
1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Enablement is a question of law based
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 09/20/2023
6 BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC.
on underlying factual findings. Id. “Because patents are
presumed valid, lack of enablement must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence.” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx
Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Baxalta argues summary judgment of invalidity for
lack of enablement was improper because, when viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to Baxalta, skilled
artisans can obtain the full scope of claimed antibodies
without undue experimentation. Specifically, Baxalta ar-
gues skilled artisans can make and identify new claimed
antibodies (with new variable regions) using the routine
hybridoma-and-screening process disclosed in the ’590 pa-
tent and that such routine screening does not amount to
undue experimentation. In light of the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Amgen, we cannot agree.
In Amgen, the patents claimed all antibodies that (1)
bind to specific amino acid residues on a protein known as
PCSK9; and (2) block PCSK9 from binding to LDL recep-
tors. 598 U.S. at 602. The full scope of the claims covered
potentially millions of antibodies, but the specification only
disclosed the amino acid sequences of twenty-six antibodies
that performed the two claimed functions. Id. at 612–13.
To make and use the undisclosed claimed antibodies,
skilled artisans could either follow the “roadmap” disclosed
in the patent or employ a technique known as “conservative
substitution.” Id. at 603. The roadmap directed skilled ar-
tisans to:
(1) generate a range of antibodies in the lab; (2) test
those antibodies to determine whether any bind to
PCSK9; (3) test those antibodies that bind to
PCSK9 to determine whether any bind to the sweet
spot as described in the claims; and (4) test those
antibodies that bind to the sweet spot as described
in the claims to determine whether any block
PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors.
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 7 Filed: 09/20/2023
BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC. 7
Id. The conservative substitution technique directed
skilled artisans to: “(1) start with an antibody known to
perform the described functions; (2) replace select amino
acids in the antibody with other amino acids known to have
similar properties; and (3) test the resulting antibody to see
if it also performs the described functions.” Id.
The Supreme Court held these methods “amount to lit-
tle more than two research assignments” and fail to enable
the full scope of the claims. Id. at 612–15. The Court rea-
soned Amgen’s roadmap “merely describes step-by-step
Amgen’s own trial-and-error method for finding functional
antibodies—calling on scientists to create a wide range of
candidate antibodies and then screen each to see” which
practice the claims. Id. at 614. Similarly, the conservative
substitution technique simply “requires scientists to make
substitutions to the amino acid sequences of antibodies
known to work and then test the resulting antibodies to see
if they do too—an uncertain prospect given the state of the
art.” Id. Such approaches leave skilled artisans to “engage
in ‘painstaking experimentation’ to see what works,” which
“is not enablement.” Id. (quoting Consol. Elec. Light Co. v.
McKeesport Light Co., 159 U.S. 465, 475 (1895)). The Su-
preme Court acknowledged, however, that methods like a
roadmap or conservative substitution might be sufficient to
enable other claims under different circumstances, such as
where the patent discloses “a quality common to every
functional embodiment.” Id.; see also id. at 611 (“[I]t may
suffice to give an example (or a few examples) if the speci-
fication also discloses ‘some general quality . . . running
through’ the class that gives it ‘a peculiar fitness for the
particular purpose.’ In some cases, disclosing that general
quality may reliably enable a person skilled in the art to
make and use all of what is claimed, not merely a subset.”
(quoting Consol. Elec. Light Co., 159 U.S. at 475)).
The facts of this case are materially indistinguishable
from those in Amgen. Claim 1 of the ’590 patent covers all
antibodies that (1) bind to Factor IX/IXa; and (2) increase
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 8 Filed: 09/20/2023
8 BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC.
the procoagulant activity of Factor IXa. 2 There are mil-
lions of potential candidate antibodies, J.A. 18754–55 ¶ 22,
but the written description discloses the amino acid se-
quences for only eleven antibodies with the two claimed
functions. See ’590 patent at 12:36–49. To obtain the un-
disclosed but claimed antibodies, the written description
directs skilled artisans to: (1) immunize mice with human
Factor IX/IXa; (2) form hybridomas from the antibody-se-
creting spleen cells of those mice; (3) test those antibodies
to determine whether they bind to Factor IX/IXa; and (4)
test those antibodies that bind to Factor IX/IXa to deter-
mine whether any increase procoagulant activity. Id. at
9:62–12:56. Just like the roadmap rejected by the Supreme
Court in Amgen, the ’590 patent’s roadmap simply directs
skilled artisans to engage in the same iterative, trial-and-
error process the inventors followed to discover the eleven
antibodies they elected to disclose. See Amgen, 598 U.S. at
613–14. In both cases, “nothing in the specification
[teaches] how to identify any antibodies complying with the
claim limitations other than by repeating the same process
the inventors used to identify the . . . examples disclosed in
the specification.” Baxalta, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 619.
Moreover, it is undisputed the ’590 patent contains no
disclosures—such as “a quality common to every functional
2 The parties do not raise distinct arguments with
respect to dependent claims 2–4, 19, and 20. Rather, the
parties agree that practicing the challenged claims re-
quires two steps: (1) obtaining new antibodies with new
variable regions that bind to Factor IX/IXa and increase
procoagulant activity; and (2) engineering these variable
regions into the isotypes and formats recited in the depend-
ent claims. Because, as discussed infra, we hold it requires
unreasonable experimentation to practice the first step, we
need not consider whether it would require unreasonable
experimentation to practice the second step.
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 9 Filed: 09/20/2023
BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC. 9
embodiment,” Amgen, 598 U.S. at 614—that would allow a
skilled artisan to predict which antibodies will perform the
claimed functions. The patent does not disclose any com-
mon structural (or other) feature delineating which anti-
bodies will bind to Factor IX/IXa and increase procoagulant
activity from those that will not. Nor does the patent de-
scribe why the eleven disclosed antibodies perform the
claimed functions, or why the other screened antibodies do
not. The only guidance the patent provides is “to create a
wide range of candidate antibodies and then screen each to
see which happen to bind” to Factor IX/IXa and increase
procoagulant activity. Id. Amgen makes clear that such
an instruction, without more, is not enough to enable the
broad functional genus claims at issue here. Id. at 614–15
(“[T]he . . . problem we see [is that] Amgen offers persons
skilled in the art little more than advice to engage in ‘trial
and error.’”).
In an attempt to distinguish Amgen, Baxalta argues
the hybridoma-and-screening process disclosed in the ’590
patent does not require trial and error but instead predict-
ably and reliably generates new claimed antibodies every
time it is performed. Even accepting as true that skilled
artisans will generate at least one claimed antibody each
time they follow the disclosed process, this does not take
the process out of the realm of the trial-and-error ap-
proaches rejected in Amgen. 3 Amgen made clear
that § 112(a) requires inventors to enable the “full scope”
of the claimed invention without unreasonable
3 Indeed, the same was apparently true in Amgen.
See Brief for Petitioners at 49, Amgen, 598 U.S. 594 (No.
21-757) (“It was undisputed that, by following the patents’
roadmap, skilled artisans can generate other claimed anti-
bodies every time.”). Yet, the Supreme Court still held
Amgen’s roadmap required trial and error. See Amgen, 598
U.S. at 614–15.
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 10 Filed: 09/20/2023
10 BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC.
experimentation. Id. at 610–12. Here, it is undisputed
that to practice the full scope of the claimed invention,
skilled artisans must make candidate antibodies and
screen them to determine which ones perform the claimed
functions. See J.A. 16451, 17340–41 (Baxalta’s experts tes-
tifying the only way for skilled artisans to identify a new
embodiment of the genus “is to make antibodies and test
them”). This is the definition of trial and error and leaves
the public no better equipped to make and use the claimed
antibodies than the inventors were when they set out to
discover the antibodies over which they now have an exclu-
sive right. Under Amgen, such random trial-and-error dis-
covery, without more, constitutes unreasonable
experimentation that falls outside the bounds required by
§ 112(a). 598 U.S. at 613–15.
Finally, Baxalta argues the district court’s enablement
determination is inconsistent with In re Wands, 858 F.2d
731 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We do not agree. We have previously
explained the factual distinction between Wands and
Amgen. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, 987 F.3d
1080, 1085–86 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The facts of this case are
more analogous to—and are, in fact, indistinguishable
from—those in Amgen. We do not interpret Amgen to have
disturbed our prior enablement case law, including Wands
and its factors. 4
In light of the foregoing, we hold the ’590 patent fails
to teach skilled artisans how to make and use the full scope
of claimed antibodies without unreasonable
4 At oral argument, both parties agreed the Supreme
Court did not disturb the Wands factors. Oral Arg. at
00:40–1:16, 30:31–31:15, available at https://cafc.uscourts.
gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments. We see
no meaningful difference between Wands’ “undue experi-
mentation” and Amgen’s “[un]reasonable experimentation”
standards.
Case: 22-1461 Document: 53 Page: 11 Filed: 09/20/2023
BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC. 11
experimentation. We therefore affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment that claims 1–4, 19, and 20 are
not enabled.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above,
we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED