Federal Circuit Hands Personalized Medicine Patent Holders New Tool for Enforcement

06 September 2012 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog

If two or more actors jointly perform a patented method, is the claim infringed ? Late last week, in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit said yes, infringement can be found under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) if a party induced others to act with him or induced others to perform all elements of the claim. In an en banc opinion, the court overruled its prior precedent which held that in order for a single party to be liable for induced infringement, a single entity must perform all elements of the claim. See BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The court in Akamai reasoned that a party who knowingly induces others to engage in acts that jointly practice the steps of a patented method – and those others perform those steps – has had precisely the same impact on the patentee as the party who induces the same infringement by a single infringer.

Application to Personalized Medicine

The case is important to diagnostic method patents and personalized medicine because it is not uncommon for two or more parties to collectively perform all elements of a single diagnostic claim. For example, personalized medicine method claims that would be performed by two or more actors can relate to determining if a patient is likely to develop a disease:

1. A method of determining the increased likelihood of having or developing rheumatoid arthritis in a patient, comprising the steps of:

obtaining a serum sample from a patient;

contacting the serum sample with an anti-IgM XYZ antibody; and

determining that the patient has rheumatoid arthritis or an increased likelihood of developing rheumatoid arthritis based upon the increased binding of the anti-IgM antibody to IgM rheumatoid factor in the serum sample.

In the above method, one party such as a laboratory technician, would normally obtain the serum sample from the patient and transfer the sample to a clinical laboratory for the “contacting” step with the anti-IgM XYZ antibody. Under the Akamai holding, a party that knowingly required the sampling from the patient and testing of the sample would be liable for infringement.

With certain caveats, the Federal Circuit’s Akamai decision provides another cause of action for the enforcement of patented methods when two or more actors jointly perform the claim. For example, to prove induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the patentee must prove that the accused infringer possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement, and that actual practice or use of the claim occurred. In addition, the Federal Circuit explicitly stated that joint or divided infringement does not apply to direct infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

Finally, Akamai may not be the last word on the issue. Six of the eleven Federal Circuit judges joined in the majority opinion. Judge Linn, joined by four judges, strongly dissented indicating he would have instead followed BMC Resources, supra. Judge Newman opined that joint liability for two or more actors should have been extended to direct infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271 (a)) as well. In light of the disparate views of the Federal Circuit judges, one or more parties may choose to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights