Tafas v. Dudas et al Doc.

175
Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:07cv846 (JCC/TRJ)
)
JON W. DUDAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

CONSOLIDATED WITH

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM )
CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:07cv1008 (JCC/TRJ)
)
JON W. DUDAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (“BIO”) respectfully submits this brief in

support of the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the above-captioned consolidated

cases. The final rules published by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on August 21,

2007, significantly alter patent applicants’ ability to claim and protect their inventions. Changes

to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably

Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications, 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 2 of 23

21, 2007) [“Final Rules”] (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1). The adverse effects of the Final

Rules will nowhere be felt more strongly than in the biotechnology industry. This industry relies

heavily on patent law and the current, established PTO rules of practice to obtain adequate

protection for its inventions and to attract financing for products that often take more than a

decade to reach the market. BIO is deeply concerned about the irreversible loss of patent rights

and the disincentives to innovation that the Final Rules will cause.

Like the plaintiffs, BIO believes that the Final Rules violate the patent laws and the

Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706. Instead of repeating the arguments the plaintiffs

have ably made on these points, BIO’s brief will address the significant harm that the provisions

of the Final Rules that place severe limitations on continuations and on the number of patent

claims an applicant can make will cause to the biotechnology industry and the public at large if

those Rules are allowed to go into effect.

II. Background

BIO is the largest trade association representing the biotechnology industry. BIO was

founded in 1993 to represent biotechnology companies at the local, state, federal, and

international levels. As of December 2006, BIO’s membership consisted of more than 1,100

biotechnology companies, academic centers, state and local associations, and related enterprises.

Although BIO members’ concerns with the Final Rules overlap with the plaintiffs’, BIO

represents a diverse array of biotechnology organizations working in a variety of di fferent fields

that will be uniquely affected by the Final Rules. BIO’s members range from large Fortune 500

companies to the smallest start-ups and university spin-offs. They are involved in researching

and developing biotechnology products across a wide array of technology areas, including food

and agriculture, healthcare, industrial, and environmental.

2
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 3 of 23

Biotechnology is a highly capital- and research-intensive industry. For example, in 2005,

the U.S. biotechnology industry raised over $20 billion in financing and spent $19.8 billion on

research and development of more than 400 investigational drug products and vaccines. BIO,

GUIDE TO BIOTECHNOLOGY 2007, at 2, available at http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/

BiotechGuide.pdf. Many of the medicines that companies in this industry developed are now

being used to treat the most vexing of human diseases, such as various forms of cancer. Modern

crop science applies biotechnology to enhance productivity in corn, cotton, and soybean farming,

and to reduce their environmental impact. Bioethanol made from crop wastes using enzymes

developed by the biotechnology industry could meet a quarter of U.S. energy needs by 2025. Id.

The vast majority of BIO’s corporate members are development-stage companies that

have yet to achieve profitability and that may be years from bringing their technologies to

market. To such companies, patents are vital. The ability to obtain clear and comprehensive

patent protection attracts the capital and corporate partners necessary for the costly and lengthy

development, approval, and marketing process for biotechnology inventions. Sustaining the

necessary level of financing and partnering depends on a biotechnology company’s ability to

develop comprehensive patent protection for investigational products. For this, and other,

reasons, start-up biotechnology companies must apply for patents early and often. 1

The Final Rules’ limitations on continuations practice and the number of permissible

claims will weaken the patent protection available to biotechnology companies for

investigational products, and will undermine their efforts to obtain financing and other support to

1
Forgoing patent protection and relying on trade secrets protection is generally not a realistic
option for early-stage biotechnology companies. Several factors may drive the early disclosure
of new discoveries, including (1) the need to publish in scientific journals, (2) regulatory review
processes that require disclosure, (3) securities regulations that may compel disclosure, and (4)
the need to attract investors or development partners during the early stages of development,
which are typically the most difficult to fund.

3
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 4 of 23

continue research. This in turn will harm the public, which may never receive the benefits of

products the development of which may be abandoned for lack of funds.

Furthermore, because of the length of time involved in bringing complex biotechnology

products to market, continuations practice is more prominent with respect to biotechnology

patents than those in other areas of technology, such as electronic and mechanical patents. By

one measure, the percentage of first Office actions on the merits taken from continuing

applications is highest with respect to patents in the life sciences and biotechnology area by a

wide margin (approximately 42%, compared to about 24% to 28% in all other technologies). See

James Toupin, General Counsel, PTO, Presentation at the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law

Association “Washington and the West” Conference: The State of the Patent System 8 (Jan. 25,

2006), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/presentation/laiplabackground.ppt. The

Final Rules will affect biotechnology more than other technology areas because biotechnology

applications and the associated patentability issues are often more complex, which results in a

longer and more involved examination process requiring more continuing applications and

requests for continued examination (“RCEs”).

Thus, the Final Rules are likely to have a disparate impact on BIO’s members. These

effects have important implications for the public’s access to the benefits of advances in

biotechnology. In particular, the Final Rules may prevent biotechnology companies from

developing the next generation of agricultural products, industrial processes, environmental

solutions, or drugs, treatments, and therapies.

III. If Implemented, the Final Rules Will Harm the Biotechnology Industry and the
Public Interest

Because of the diversity of BIO’s membership and the wide-ranging scope of the

technologies its members work with, it would not be possible to touch on all of the ways the

4
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 5 of 23

Final Rules will adversely affect the biotechnology industry. Rather, in the sections that follow,

BIO focuses on several effects of the Final Rules, including some examples.

The first section discusses what are perhaps two of the most critical aspects in the lives of

biotechnology companies: (a) the decision as to which products to invest often limited

resources; and (b) the ability to secure financing for research and development of these products.

The second section discusses how biotechnology inventions benefit both from fully-developed

claims sets, which would be limited by the Final Rules to five independent and twenty-five total

claims, and from the ability to file multiple continuations and RCEs beyond the Final Rules’ de

facto limit of two continuations and one RCE. The final section highlights how these adverse

effects will harm the public good by suppressing the number of new biotechnology

advancements that reach the market and the number of biotechnology inventions publicly

disclosed.

A. Protecting All Aspects of Inventions Through Continuations and

Comprehensive Claims Sets Is Essential to Biotechnology Companies in
Making Investment Decisions, Obtaining Financing, and Negotiating
Technology Transfers

Biotechnology companies often must choose to pursue a limited number of new products

or technologies from among several viable ideas. In some instances, these decisions have to be

made early in the development process because of the high up-front costs and capital

requirements involved in proceeding with development of a technology. Significant factors in

this decision-making process are the ultimate scope and robustness of patent protection. Absent

well-developed and robust patent protection, a biotechnology company is less likely to invest in

promising new technologies and will find it more difficult to obtain the financing necessary to

see the technologies through their long developments.

5
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 6 of 23

For example, biotechnology companies developing large molecule biologics2 often have

to make large investment decisions early in the development process. Biologics are produced

using cell culture facilities that, on average, take three to five years to construct, cost between

$250 million and $450 million, and must often be constructed during clinical testing. See Henry

Grabowski et al., The Market for Follow-On Biologics: How Will it Evolve?, 25 HEALTH

AFFAIRS 1291, 1294 (2006). To make such investments, the company must have a clear prospect

of adequately protecting all aspects of the invention, including those aspects that become

important during the development process and are amenable to protection through continuation

or continuation-in-part (“CIP”) applications. Because the limitations in the Final Rules related to

continuations, CIPs, and claims sets will lead to more limited patent protection, biotechnology

companies are less likely to make these significant investments, thereby depriving the public of

the important resulting benefits.

For small, development-stage biotechnology companies, a key concern is financing their

research and development efforts. Unlike large biotechnology companies that may be able to

rely on their established portfolio of corporate assets and revenue streams to produce capital and

to attract investment, development-stage companies must solicit investments in the capital

markets based on the commercial attractiveness of their inventions. Patents play a unique role in

the business models of such companies, for whom business risks are unusually high. For

example, of all compounds entering clinical testing, approximately 70% fail to reach Food and

Drug Administration (“FDA”) review. See Joseph A. DiMasi & Henry G. Grabowski, The Cost

of Biopharmaceutical R&D: Is Biotech Different?, 28 MANAGERIAL & DECISION ECON. 470,

2
Large molecule biologics include proteins, such as antibodies, growth factors, and hormones, as
opposed to small molecular entities derived from chemical synthesis.

6
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 7 of 23

472 (2007). Biotechnology businesses must raise large amounts of capital in the face of such

failure rates. A recent study estimates the total capitalized cost of developing a biotechnology

drug at $1.2 billion—money that, in large part, must be raised by convincing investors. Id. at

475. If such high failure rates were not enough of a disincentive to investing such large amounts

of money, investors must also consider the time they have to wait before, if ever, getting a return.

It takes, on average, over eight years to advance a biotechnology drug through the required

clinical testing and the FDA approval process—time during which those investment dollars

could bring a safer, and quicker, return if invested elsewhere. Id. at 473.

Strong patent protection mitigates the impact of these many disincentives to

biotechnology investment, and therefore is critical to the biotechnology industry. Patents ensure

a limited period of exclusivity during which a profitable biotechnology product, developed

against all odds, can provide investors a reasonable return and at the same time allow the public

to benefit from use of the product.3 Comprehensive patent protection, including that afforded by

continuations and fully-developed claims sets, mitigates business risk in the biotechnology

industry. The imposition of a de facto limit on the number of continuations and claims, however,

raises the likelihood that not all commercially important aspects of an invention can be protected.

This will lead to higher perceived business risk, reduced levels of investment, and hence a lower

3
It is for this reason that capital markets are extremely sensitive to the impact of patent law
changes on the biotechnology industry. For example, on March 14, 2000, when President
Clinton and Prime Minister Blair made a joint statement raising doubts about patent protection
for newly decoded human gene sequences (a statement that was subsequently clarified),
biotechnology stocks went into a tailspin. In a single day, the NASDAQ biotechnology index
dropped by about 13%, Alex Berenson & Nicholas Wade, A Call for Sharing of Research
Causes Gene Stocks to Plunge, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 15, 2000, at A1, with some companies losing
as much as 20% of their market value within a few hours, Eliot Marshall, How a Bland
Statement Sent Stocks Sprawling, 287 SCI. 2127, 2127 (2000).

7
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 8 of 23

likelihood that research is begun, continued, or brought to fruition in the form of new products or

technologies that benefit the public.

These adverse consequences of the Final Rules also will affect university-based research.

Unlike many other industries, much of the biotechnology industry’s pipeline of products is

developed initially in a university setting. Basic research discoveries initially made by

universities and research institutions often lead to multi-faceted inventions, which are frequently

patented and licensed to start-up biotechnology companies for further development and

commercialization. This process of patenting and licensing promotes the interests of research

institutions in seeing their discoveries translated into real-world products that benefit patients and

consumers, and funnels billions of dollars from the commercial marketplace back into basic

research and higher education. 4 But, because the limitations on continuations, CIPs, and claims

sets in the Final Rules will limit the patent protection for these discoveries, the flow of funds to

universities for basic research will be reduced, because private industry will not risk making

substantial investments without adequate protection for their intellectual property.

Many of BIO’s member companies are small companies that demonstrate the relationship

between university-based research and the private marketplace. The initial technology for these

companies often is developed at major research universities. These biotechnology companies

often seek their initial round of investment from venture capital firms. It was important to these

venture capital firms that the patents protecting the biotechnology companies’ technology have

4
For 2006 alone, U.S. academic institutions organized in the Association of University
Technology Managers (“AUTM”) reported receiving research funding from industry licensees
under more than 12,600 active licenses. See AUTM U.S. LICENSING ACTIVITY SURVEY: FY
2006, SURVEY SUMMARY 5 (2007), available at http://www.autm.org/events/file/
AUTM_06_US%20LSS_FNL.pdf. At approximately $3.18 billion, industry-provided research
funding constituted the second-largest source of research funding for U.S. universities, hospitals,
and research institutions during that year. See id. at 20. Of almost 5,000 new licenses granted
under university patents, two-thirds went to small companies and start-ups. See id. at 31.

8
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 9 of 23

enough longevity to support the research and development cycle necessary to make the

technology commercially mature and be sufficiently robust to withstand competition. These

biotechnology companies can be successful in securing initial and on-going investments if they

are able to develop a patent strategy using a series of continuations and fully-developed claims

sets—an approach that would be foreclosed by the Final Rules.

Without the flexibility to protect all aspects of any one of their inventions through

continuations and full claims sets, universities, through spin-off companies, may not be able to

attract the investments necessary to bring the inventions to commercial fruition—all due to the

new rigidity of the Final Rules.

B. Biotechnology Inventions, and the Public, Benefit from Current

Continuations Practice and Fully-Developed Claims Sets

The PTO justifies the new restrictions on continuations practice, in part, on what it views

as unfocused and abusive practices. See 72 Fed. Reg. at 46,719-46,720. The PTO also claims

that the new limits on the number of claims and the examination support document (“ESD”)

requirement will assist patent examiners in their examination and evaluation of patent

applications. See id. at 46,721. But the PTO already has the authority to regulate and punish

those rare instances of actual abuse of the patent process. See 37 C.F.R. § 10.18; Manual of Pat.

Examination Proc. § 410.5

5
Prior to June 8, 1995, the term of protection of a U.S. patent, including a patent issued on a
continuation application, was seventeen years measured from the grant of the patent. Since June
8, 1995, however, the term of protection begins on the date of grant and ends twenty years from
the filing date of the application for the patent. If priority of an earlier application or applications
is claimed under sections 120, 121, or 365(c) of Title 35, the twenty-year period is measured
from the filing date of the earliest of such earlier applications. The patent term provisions of
Section 154, applicable to virtually all currently pending patent applications, thus provide a
significant disincentive to dilatory prosecution tactics since successive continuation filings “eat
up” patent term of any patent issued on such applications. Applicants’ incentive therefore is to
obtain allowance as quickly as possible to have the greatest amount of term remaining after the
patent issues.

9
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 10 of 23

More importantly, the PTO ignores that current practices regarding continuations and

claims sets, on the whole, have a beneficial effect on patent quality and validity. Biotechnology

inventions tend to be more complex than those in many other areas. They also frequently arise in

a competitive, rapidly developing research environment characterized by high rates of scientific

publications, vibrant scholarly discourse in public forums, and substantial amounts of prior art

that must be discovered over time and carefully analyzed. Existing continuations and RCE

practice affords applicants the several rounds of prosecution that may be necessary to fully

prosecute a complex biotechnology invention, gives examiners the opportunity to fully consider

the case, and permits both examiners and applicants to develop the prosecution history to a point

where it is in an appropriate—rather than premature—posture for allowance or appe al. In this

respect, the Final Rules cause greater harm to inventions from biotechnology and other highly

complex technologies that may legitimately require multiple rounds of prosecution, because they

force applicants to “use up” their available continuations rather than settle for premature appeals

or insufficient protection.

Moreover, at the time of filing of an original patent application, a biotechnology

company often does not yet know which of several disclosed alternative embodiments of the

invention will ultimately be developed commercially. The company must fear that important

embodiments of their inventions—those whose commercial importance becomes clear only

during the product development phase—will not receive adequate patent protection because all

available continuations have been “used up” during earlier rounds of prosecution. The

competition for investment dollars drives biotechnology companies to file patent applications

early in the development of the invention to generate interest or to satisfy milestones required by

10
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 11 of 23

their investors. As a result, these companies properly file applications long before the

technology has advanced to clinical trials, manufacturing, or commercialization.

Frequently, an initial biotechnology patent application will describe several products, and

several uses for these products, based on the inventor’s laboratory experiments. For example, a

scientist may find a way to halt the abnormal growth of a number of different cancer cell lines in

cell culture, and corroborates this finding with a mouse study using experimental tumors from

several of these cancer cell lines. The patent application teaches that the invention is useful in

the diagnosis and treatment of solid tumors generally, and discloses specific methods for treating

a number of cancers. During prosecution of the patent application, however, the patent examiner

may allow only some of the specific cancer treatment claims—for example, those that are

supported by both mouse and cell culture data—and may finally reject claims related to treating

solid tumors generally, or treating specific types of cancer for which the applicant presented only

cell culture data.

This common conundrum presents the patent applicant with a difficult choice: the

applicant does not yet know for which of the several disclosed embodiments—in this example

the medical indication—the invention will eventually be commercially developed, if at all.

Should the applicant accept a patent with narrow claims, and run the risk that subsequent clinical

research confirms the medical and commercial value of the invention in another indication that

was disclosed in the application but not among the allowed claims? In biotechnology, the

development of the commercial product requires significant further testing in animals, and FDA

approval is needed to conduct the series of clinical trials necessary for final approval. As noted

above, because the lengthy animal and human clinical trials are extremely resource-intensive,

11
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 12 of 23

applicants may pursue different products serially over time, using continuations and robust

claims sets to cover the various embodiments.

For example, an antibody product initially pursued for one type of cancer was later

developed for other types of cancer—indications that were disclosed in the original patent

application. Some of these additional indications are covered by continuation applications.

Similarly, other antibodies, initially claimed and developed through clinical trials for rheumatoid

arthritis, were subsequently pursued for other originally disclosed diseases such as Crohn’s

disease, psoriasis, and sarcoidosis, which have been the subject of continuation applications.

However, the Final Rules may not permit the biotechnology company to file continuations with

claims to capture such additional, medically valuable uses.

Development-stage companies need patent protection for such commercial embodiments

whose importance only becomes clear after investing in additional research—not only for the

initial embodiment whose prosecution may already have used up the available continuations. As

such, the vastly restricted continuations and claims practice under the Final Rules robs such

companies of much of the flexibility needed to protect their investigational products and bring

their technology to fruition.

The small BIO member companies described above, which often develop technologies

first generated at a university, are able to implement a patent strategy that involves a series of

continuations with disclosures that are both broad and deep. The ability to plan for multiple

continuations allows these companies initially to make broad disclosures safely with limited

funding. This strategy plays an important role in a company’s ability to secure initial and on-

going investments, which are necessary for continued research and development. The ability to

satisfactorily capture all of the benefits of a broadly enabling technology also is important in

12
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 13 of 23

convincing investors to help biotechnology companies commercially develop their new

technology.

As mentioned above, claims practice under the Final Rules will allow only five

independent and twenty-five total claims to be examined per application before an ESD is

required (the “5/25 Rule”). The 5/25 Rule will also extend across all copending, commonly

owned applications containing at least one patentably indistinct claim. If the sum of all the

claims in each commonly owned application containing at least one patentably indistinct claim is

greater than the limits of the 5/25 Rule, the applicant either must file an ESD before the first

Office action on the merits or must cancel claims in excess of the limit.

The PTO has included this provision ostensibly “to preclude an applicant from submitting

multiple applications with claims that are patentably indistinct . . . for the purposes of avoiding

the requirement to submit an examination support document.” 72 Fed. Reg. at 46,722.

However, the 5/25 Rule also effectively prevents applicants from prosecuting parallel CIPs or

continuations with any patentably indistinct claim for the purpose of capturing improvements or

other aspects of the invention. See id. at 46,725 Applicants and investors do not know whether a

continuation application contains a “patentably indistinct” claim until the PTO makes that

determination, making it necessary to delay filing of continuation applications until the parent

application is prosecuted to allowance. Such a result, however, will have a significant negative

impact on even well-meaning applicants who, far from engaging in “unfocused”’ or “abusive”

prosecution tactics, wish to prosecute a continuation application to allowance as quickly as

possible. A patent issued on such a serially filed continuation application is certain to lose part

of its effective protection, because much of its effective patent term (which is measured from the

13
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 14 of 23

filing date of the earliest prior application) is consumed by the time it takes to sequentially

prosecute its one or more parent applications.

The 5/25 Rule will also prevent a biotechnology applicant from using so-called “genus”

and “species” claims to describe their inventions. Broad genus claims cover a wide breadth of

subject matter, often with few limitations. However, such claims are more vulnerable to

invalidity challenges on the basis of unidentified prior art or lack of enablement. Narrow species

claims describe different embodiments of the invention that fit within the scope of a genus claim.

Species claims are generally less vulnerable to invalidity challenges, but may allow a competitor

to successfully design around the claim limitations. Thus, during patent enforcement, it is

important to have both genus and species claims because the combination of these claims allows

the inventor to protect the full scope of the invention.

The Final Rules effectively eliminate the ability of patent applicants to develop such

strategies of using multiple applications that are filed as research progresses. In addition to the

changes in claims and continuations practice, the PTO is requiring that applications containing

overlapping genus and species claims be prosecuted serially, rather than in parallel as is currently

allowed, and is requiring that a genus claim application be fully prosecuted before species claims

applications are even filed in an application with only patent distinct claims, called a

“divisional.” 72 Fed. Reg. at 46,727-46,728. As a practical matter, the second application would

not issue until about six years after filing under the best-case scenario, depriving applicants of

the full patent term to which they are entitled. In reality, the prosecution would likely require

significantly longer time and reduce the patent term accordingly.

Under current practice, genus and species claims could issue at the same time, typically

about three years after filing. By forcing applicants to prosecute continuations or divisionals

14
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 15 of 23

serially, the PTO will reduce the effective period of exclusivity for the scope of the invention.

By reducing available patent term, the value of the patent, and thus the incentive to make the

investment necessary to develop the patentable technology, is eroded significantly.

Genus and species claims also are important for a discovery that can be licensed in more

than one market, an approach often used by universities and other research institutions. For

example, a basic genetic invention made in a research laboratory may eventually be of interest to

companies that develop very different products, such as laboratory reagents, veterinary

medicines, diagnostic services, forensic tests, fermentation or biological manufacturing, or

medicines for human use. Each of the various parties has its own specific patent-related needs:

a diagnostic company may have a need for claims specifically directed to test kits and diagnostic

methods; a drug company may need specific pharmaceutical composition claims; and a

manufacturing company may need specific biological process claims. With flexible use of

claims and continuations, specific aspects of the invention all can be protected separately,

allowing a research institution to license several small start-ups with different, specific

commercial applications, thereby promoting the dissemination and wider adaptation of new

technology in the marketplace. Under the Final Rules, however, both claims and continuations

become a precious commodity, confronting such licensors with hard choices between the

competing needs and interests of its licensees and, ultimately, quenching incentives for further

innovation.

This competition will occur, in part because the order in which subject matter is claimed

and examined can have significant effects. As explained above, the 5/25 Rule effectively

reduces the amount of time that a second or third patent is enforceable. Although the PTO

argues that the Final Rules will permit applicants a maximum of fifteen independent claims and

15
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 16 of 23

seventy-five total claims through the use of two continuations or CIPs, those continuing

applications must be pursued serially to avoid exceeding the 5/25 limit across co-pending

applications. 72 Fed. Reg. at 46,725. Thus, should these subsequent claims issue in patents, the

applicant would have less enforceable patent term for second and third patents than afforded the

first patent. This necessarily harms applicants and particularly, applicants in biotechnology and

other high technology areas that require more claims to adequately cover the scope of the

invention.

Experience has shown that, in the case of complicated, evolving technologies such as

those in the biotechnology field, fully-developed claims sets and unrestricted continuations

practice actually improve patent quality and validity. 6 For example, more claims encompassing

specific embodiments of the invention will often allow patent examiners to better understand the

subject matter. While several continuations are pending, the patent examiner becomes intimately

familiar with the technology through prior art searches and the back-and-forth with the applicant

explaining the invention. During this period, applicants may also provide additional prior art,

possibly as a result of additional research or testing. Because of such extensive examination, the

quality of the examination and the quality of the claims are improved, and a much stronger

patent of appropriate scope issues.

6
Conversely, there is no empirical evidence that continuation practice has resulted in higher
numbers of invalid patents. The finding of Lemley and Moore that continuations are more likely
to be litigated can be seen as an indicator of the commercial importance of continuations,
highlighting that continuation patents often are among a patent owner’s most valuable assets. (In
Lemley and Moore’s sample, continuations constituted 23% of all issued patents, but 52% of all
litigated patents. Mark A. Lemley & Kimberley A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent
Continuations 13 n.40 (Geo. Mason Univ. Sch. of Law, Law & Econ. Working Paper Series,
Paper No. 03-52, 2003; Univ. of Cal., Berkeley Sch. of Law, Pub. Law & Legal Theory Research
Paper Series, Paper No. 140, 2003), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=462404.)

16
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 17 of 23

In sum, without the ability to protect all aspects of the inventions through continuations

and fully-developed claim sets, refinements made during the developmental testing process may

never be disclosed or brought to commercial fruition. Details of a complex, commercially viable

biotechnology invention are likely to unfold in a piecemeal fashion with continued research. As

the research identifies new improvements and aspects of the invention that are commercially

important, the biotechnology company properly will seek to patent them. If research is

redirected, under current practice, an applicant is unlikely to withdraw a previously filed

application if it covers a workable product, since the biotechnology company will want to

maintain exclusivity around their invention. Without that patent protection, the disclosed

material is in the public domain and may be used by a competitor that has not invested in the

improvements. See Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054

(Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, without patent protection, the biotechnology company is unlikely to

continue to invest in that improvement or aspect of the invention, and its importance or potential

may be lost. Moreover, because the effect of the Final Rules would have applicants file and

prosecute applications serially, a company may choose instead to pursue the aspects of the

invention that were claimed first, rather than those that provide the best result, creating an

additional disincentive to further innovation.

C. Resulting Harm to the Public Interest

As a result of the adverse effects discussed above, the public interest will be harmed in

two related ways if the Final Rules are allowed to go into effect. First, fewer new products and

technologies may be brought to market. Second, fewer products and technologies will be

disclosed to the public, contrary to the express purpose of patents to disseminate information in

order “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. C ONST. art. I, § 8.

17
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 18 of 23

As noted above, without the security of robust patent protections, development-stage

biotechnology companies will be less likely to attract investors to finance the development of

new products and technologies. Without these investments, these companies simply do not have

the resources to bring their new ideas to the market. Larger companies will also be unwilling to

invest substantial resources in developing new products and technologies without strong patents

that will protect their inventions from being copied once they are brought to market. In either

situation, the result is less investment in research and development and, ultimately, fewer new

products and technologies.

Alternatively, biotechnology companies may turn to trade secrets to protect their

intellectual property. As noted above, trade secrets protection is of less value to development-

stage biotechnology companies, because of their need to raise funds in the capital markets. But

any reliance on trade secrets protection will result in no public disclosure of these new

technologies, stifling innovation. This stifling effect will ultimately result in fewer new products

and technologies being developed. A similar effect may flow from patents filed and issued under

the Final Rules. Given the restrictions on claims and continuations, biotechnology companies

will have to limit what is claimed in a patent application. Accordingly, applicants will limit the

scope of the disclosure in their applications to avoid dedicating to the public potential

commercial embodiments. The effect, again, will be to stifle innovation because of the lack of

public disclosure.

18
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 19 of 23

IV. Conclusion

In view of the foregoing harms to the biotechnology industry and the public that will be

caused by the PTO’s unlawful and unreasonable restrictions on patent practice, BIO, on behalf of

its members, respectfully requests that this Court grant the plaintiffs motions for summary

judgment and permanently enjoin the Final Rules in full.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/
Randall K. Miller
VA Bar #70672
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Biotechnology Industry Organization
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
1600 Tysons Boulevard
Suite 900
McLean, VA 22102
Telephone: (703) 720-7030
Facsimile: (703) 720-7399
[email protected]

Of Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Biotechnology Industry Organization:

Ronald A. Schechter
David R. Marsh
Matthew M. Shultz
Kristan L. Lansbery
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
555 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999

Vern Norviel
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 320-4704
Facsimile: (650) 493-6811

19
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 20 of 23

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE

BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
ORGANIZATION

December 27, 2007

20
 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 21 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 27th day of December 2007, I caused a copy of the foregoing
Brief of Amicus Curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions
for Summary Judgment to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system, which will send a notification of such filing to the following:

Elizabeth M. Locke Joanna Elizabeth Baden-Mayer

Kirkland & Ellis LLP Collier Shannon & Scott
655 15th Street, NW - Suite 1200 3050 K Street, NW - Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20007
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

-and- Counsel for Plaintiff Tafas

Craig C. Reilly Lauren A. Wetzler

Richard McGettigan Reilly & West PC United States Attorney’s Office
1725 Duke Street - Suite 600 2100 Jamieson Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22314 Alexandria, VA 22314
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

-and- Counsel for Defendants

Daniel S. Trainor Thomas J. O’Brien

Kirkland & Ellis LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
655 15th Street, NW - Suite 1200 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20004
Email: [email protected] Email: to’[email protected]

Counsel for GSK Plaintiffs Counsel for Amicus American Intellectual

Property Lawyers Association
Joseph Dale Wilson, III
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Dawn-Marie Bey
Washington Harbour Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
3050 K Street NW - Suite 400 700 13th Street, NW - Suite 800
Washington, DC 20007 Washington, DC 20005
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Amici Hexas, LLC, The
-and- Roskamp Institute, Tikvah Therapeutics,
Inc.

21
Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 22 of 23

James Murphy Dowd Robert E. Scully Jr.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP Stites & Harbison PLLC
1455 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1199 N. Fairfax St. – Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004 Alexandria, VA 22314
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Amicus Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America Counsel for Amicus Human Genome
Sciences, Inc.
Rebecca M. Carr
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Matthew Schruers
2300 N Street, NW Computer & Communications Industry
Washington, DC 20037 Association
Email: [email protected] 900 Seventeenth St., N.W. – Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
-and- Email: [email protected]

Scott J. Pivnick Counsel for Amici Public Patent

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Foundation, Computer & Communications
1650 Tysons Boulevard Industry Association, AARP, Consumer
McLean, VA 22102 Federation of America, Essential Action,
Email: [email protected] Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, Initiative for Medicines, Access &
Counsel for Amicus Elan Knowledge, Knowledge Ecology
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. International, Prescription Access
Litigation, Public Knowledge, Research on
Charles Gorenstein Innovation, and Software Freedom Law
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch and Birch, LLP Center
8110 Gatehouse Road – Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042 Jonathan D. Link
Email: [email protected] Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP
1301 K Street, N.W. – Ninth Floor, East
Counsel for Amicus Intellectual Property Tower
Institute of the William Mitchell College of Washington, DC 20005
Law Email: [email protected]

Craig J. Franco Counsel for Amicus CFPH, LLC

Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.
9302 Lee Highway – Suite 1100 John C. Maginnis
Fairfax, VA 22031 1350 Connecticut Ave., N.W. – Suite 301
Email: [email protected] Washington, DC 20036
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Amici Polestar Capital
Associates, LLC and Norseman Group, Counsel for Amicus CropLife America
LLC

22
Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 175 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 23 of 23

M.F. Connell Mullins, Jr. Kevin M. Henry

Spotts Fain P.C. Sidley Austin LLP
411 E. Franklin Street – Suite 600 1501 K Street, N.W.
PO Box 1555 Washington, DC 20005
Richmond, VA 23218 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Amicus Washington Legal
Counsel for Amicus Micron Technology, Foundation
Inc.
Kenneth C. Bass
Jackson D. Toof Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
Arent Fox LLP 1100 New York Ave., N.W.
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 20036 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Amici AmberWave Systems
Counsel for Amici Valspar Corporation, Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., Donaldson Company, InterDigital Communications, LLC, Nano-
Inc., EcoLab Inc., and Anchor Wall Terra Inc., and Tessera, Inc.
Systems, Inc.
Blair Elizabeth Taylor
Robert C. Gill Covington & Burling LLP
Saul Ewing LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
2600 Virginia Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004
Suite 1000 – The Watergate Email: [email protected]
Washington, DC 20037
Email: [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Intellectual Property
Owners Association
Counsel for Amici BioAdvance, The Life
Sciences Greenhouse of Central Ron D. Katznelson
Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh Life Encinitas, CA
Sciences Greenhouse Email: [email protected]

Pro Se
/s/
Randall K. Miller
VA Bar #70672
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Biotechnology Industry
Organization
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
1600 Tysons Boulevard
Suite 900
McLean, VA 22102
Telephone: (703) 720-7030
Facsimile: (703) 720-7399
[email protected]

23