Tobinick v. Olmarker , 753 F.3d 1220 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •   United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    EDWARD TOBINICK,
    Appellant,
    v.
    KJELL OLMARKER AND BJORN RYDEVIK,
    Appellees.
    ______________________
    2013-1499
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Interference No.
    105,866.
    ______________________
    Decided: May 19, 2014
    ______________________
    ROBERT HAHL, Neifeld IP Law, PC, of Alexandria,
    Virginia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was
    RICHARD A. NEIFELD.
    TODD R. WALTERS, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC,
    of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellees. With him
    on the brief was ERIN M. DUNSTON.
    ______________________
    Before LOURIE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
    2                                     TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    REYNA, Circuit Judge.
    This appeal arises out of an interference proceeding
    before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) at the
    United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
    relating to drug treatments for spinal nerve injuries. The
    Board construed “administered locally” as administering
    the claimed therapeutic compound “directly to the site
    where it is intended to act, that is, to the location where
    the nucleus pulposus is causing the symptoms of the
    nerve disorder.” Based on this construction, the Board
    found that Edward Tobinick’s (“Tobinick”) patent applica-
    tion did not contain written description support for the
    interference count. Without written description support
    for the count, Tobinick lacked standing to bring the
    interference, and the Board dismissed. See 37 C.F.R. §
    41.201(2)(ii).
    On appeal, the parties dispute the meaning of “admin-
    istered locally” and whether Tobinick’s patent application
    contains written description support for this claim limita-
    tion. We agree with the Board’s claim construction but
    reverse its written description decision and subsequent
    dismissal. We find that Tobinick’s application contains
    sufficient written description support for local administra-
    tion because it describes administering the relevant
    therapeutic compound to the epidural space adjacent to a
    herniated spinal disc, which is the site where the com-
    pound “is intended to act” and “the location where the
    nucleus pulposus is causing the symptoms of the nerve
    disorder.” We therefore reverse.
    BACKGROUND
    The technology at issue relates to drugs for treatment
    of spinal nerve injuries, such as those associated with
    herniated discs. Between spinal vertebrae are soft discs,
    referred to as “spinal discs,” that permit the spine to flex
    and move by absorbing and distributing compressive
    forces. A spinal disc becomes herniated when tissue
    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER                                    3
    surrounding it tears. As a result, nucleus pulposus, a
    substance normally inside the disc, leaks out into the
    epidural space of the spine. Nucleus pulposus secretes a
    molecule called tumor necrosis factor-α (“TNF-α”), a
    powerful signaler of inflammation and other injuries. The
    nerve roots that extend from the spinal cord to various
    parts of the body pass through the epidural space. When
    TNF-α comes into contact with nerve roots, it injures the
    nerves and may cause back pain or numbness. The nerve
    root injuries may be reduced or eliminated by “inhibiting”
    the activity of TNF-α. The patents and application at
    issue here disclose methods of inhibiting TNF-α via the
    local administration of a monoclonal antibody (the TNF-α
    inhibitor) to the site of an affected nerve.
    Kjell Olmarker and Bjorn Rydevik (collectively “Ol-
    marker”) are the named inventors on the following related
    patents, each of which claims priority from an application
    filed on September 25, 1998:
    U.S. Patent      Involved Claims        Issue Date
    No.
    7,708,995             12, 13          May 4, 2010
    13, 22, 31, 40, 45,
    7,811,990                             Oct. 12, 2010
    48, 49, 51
    7,906,481          2, 20, 22, 
    32 A.K. Marsh. 15
    , 2011
    8,057,792            10, 11, 23, 24   Nov. 15, 2011
    6,649,589            8, 18, 27, 34    Nov. 18, 2003
    On December 15, 2011, Tobinick requested an inter-
    ference 1 by copying claims from the ’995 and ’990 patents
    1    The activities at issue occurred before the enact-
    ment of the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
    Pub.L. No. 112–29, § 3, 125 Stat 284, 285–93 (2011),
    which eliminated interference proceedings. Therefore, the
    earlier version of the patent statute, 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2)
    4                                    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    in Tobinick’s patent application 12/714,205 (“’205 applica-
    tion”). These claims covered methods of treating spinal
    nerve injuries by locally or epidurally administering a
    TNF-α inhibitor. The following claims represent the
    interference counts:
    Claim 68: A method of treating or alleviating one
    or more symptoms of a nerve disorder mediated by
    nucleus pulposus in a mammal in need of such
    treatment comprising the step of administering a
    therapeutically effective amount of a TNF-α inhib-
    itor to the mammal, wherein said TNF-α inhibitor
    is an antibody that blocks TNF-α activity, wherein
    the antibody is administered locally.
    ’205 application ¶ 36 (emphasis added).
    Claim 69: The method of claim 68, wherein the
    antibody is administered epidurally to the mam-
    mal.
    ’205 application ¶ 37 (emphasis added).
    Before the Board, Tobinick filed five motions, and Ol-
    marker filed eleven motions. As relevant here, Olmarker
    moved the Board to dismiss for lack of standing on the
    basis that Tobinick’s ’205 application did not contain
    written description support for the claim terms “adminis-
    tered locally” and “administered epidurally.” According to
    Olmarker, the ’205 application failed to describe local
    administration of a TNF-α inhibitor and instead only
    (2006), governs the activities in this case. See AIA §
    3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293 (providing that certain AIA
    amendments apply to, inter alia, applications, and pa-
    tents issued thereon, that have ever contained a claim to
    an invention having an effective filing date of March 16,
    2013, or later).
    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER                                     5
    described systemic administration. The Board held an
    oral argument on December 4, 2012.
    The Board first construed the term “administered lo-
    cally.” Tobinick argued that the term should encompass
    all localized forms of drug administration, whereas Ol-
    marker argued that the term should require administra-
    tion “directly to” the site of injury, and exclude any form
    of administration that involves travel or diffusion of the
    inhibitor. Based on the ’995 patent specification, expert
    testimony, and medical dictionary definitions, the Board
    adopted Olmarker’s construction, namely administering a
    TNF-α inhibitor “directly to the site where [the TNF-α
    inhibitor] is intended to act, that is, to the location where
    the nucleus pulposus is causing the symptoms of the
    nerve disorder.”
    Based upon its construction, the Board then found
    that the ’205 application lacked adequate written descrip-
    tion support for the construed term because it did not
    sufficiently delineate between local and non-local admin-
    istration. The Board noted that the ’205 application
    described “local” as including administration of medica-
    tion near the site of injury followed by diffusion or travel
    of the medication to the site of injury. Because this
    technique of administration would not fit within the
    Board’s construction, the Board concluded that the ’205
    application lacked written description support for “admin-
    istered locally.” Accordingly, the Board granted Olmark-
    er’s motion to dismiss and did not consider the other
    pending motions. Tobinick appealed and we have juris-
    diction under 35 U.S.C. § 1295 (2006).
    On appeal, Tobinick argues that the Board’s claim
    construction is improperly narrow and, in the alternative,
    that the ’205 application provides adequate written de-
    scription support for the interference count. We agree
    with the Board’s claim construction but reverse its writ-
    ten description decision.
    6                                      TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
    We review claim construction de novo. Lighting Bal-
    last Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am., 
    744 F.3d 1272
    ,
    1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
    
    415 F.3d 1303
    , 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In
    interference proceedings, a disputed claim is construed in
    the context of its originating disclosure rather than the
    interfering application. Robertson v. Timmermans, 
    603 F.3d 1309
    , 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“When a party challeng-
    es written description support for an interference count or
    the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclo-
    sure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim lan-
    guage.”) (internal citations omitted). Here, the claim
    limitation “wherein the antibody is administered locally”
    is construed in light of the ’995 and ’990 patent specifica-
    tions, not the ’205 application.
    The Board first considered the intrinsic evidence. The
    ’995 patent 2 discloses “a method for treating nerve disor-
    ders . . . by administering . . . a TNF inhibitor.” Col. 1 ll.
    21-24. The goal of the method is to treat back pain caused
    by TNF-α’s irritation of nerve endings. See 
    id. at col.
    2 ll.
    1-3; col. 18 ll. 4-7. The ’995 patent contrasts local and
    systemic administration. Regarding local administration,
    the patent provides an example in which the inhibitor is
    applied directly to the nucleus pulposus. 
    Id. at col.
    20 ll.
    16-29 (“[T]he nucleus pulposus was mixed with . . . the
    anti-TNF-alpha antibody.”); see also col. 17 ll. 42-47
    (describing experiments in which a “blocking monoclonal
    antibody to the TNF-alpha is applied locally in the nucle-
    us pulposus”) (emphasis added). Apart from this direct
    application, the patent does not discuss or disclose any
    2   While both the ’995 and ’990 patents are relevant
    to the construction of “administered locally,” we only
    discuss the ’995 patent here because both specifications
    are essentially the same.
    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER                                      7
    other method of local administration. Regarding systemic
    administration, the patent discloses the use of a pill taken
    orally, whereby the TNF-α inhibitor was “not adminis-
    tered locally in the autotransplanted nucleus pulposus,
    but instead was administered systemically.” 
    Id. at col.
    27
    ll. 18-20.
    Both parties presented expert testimony to the Board,
    including similar medical dictionary definitions of “local.”
    Olmarker’s witness, Dr. Andersson, relied on dictionary
    evidence to contrast the definition of “local,” as “restricted
    to or pertaining to one spot; not general,” Dorland’s Illus-
    trated Medical Dictionary 552 (23d ed. 1957), with that of
    “general,” as “affecting many parts or all parts of the
    organism, not local,” 
    id. at 772.
    Based on these defini-
    tions, Dr. Andersson defined “local administration” as
    administration “directly to the site where the medicine is
    intended to act,” whereas he defined “systemic admin-
    istration” as administration in which “medicine is broadly
    distributed before reaching the site of action, such as
    being carried . . . by the vascular system.” Dr. Andersson
    opined that the ’995 patent described the local admin-
    istration of a TNF-α inhibitor to the affected nerve roots
    in a manner consistent with these definitions. Specifical-
    ly, according to Dr. Andersson, the ’995 patent is con-
    sistent with the definitions because it describes local
    administration as entailing direct contact of the inhibitor
    with the nucleus pulposus, and systemic administration
    as entailing administering a pill.
    Tobinick’s expert witness, Dr. Richardson, also relied
    on dictionary evidence, which defined “local” in essentially
    the same way as Dr. Andersson. See Stedman’s Medical
    Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing 982
    (7th ed. 2012). Dr. Richardson also discussed more re-
    mote administration techniques. For example, Dr. Rich-
    ardson testified that a steroid can be injected up to about
    ten centimeters away from the site of the nerve injury and
    still remain effective. Dr. Richardson also explained a
    8                                     TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    type of administration called “transpinal administration,”
    in which medication is delivered to a venous system,
    remote from the nerve injury, known as the Batson’s
    plexus.
    Based on this evidence, the Board construed “admin-
    istered locally” as administered “directly to the site where
    it is intended to act, that is, to the location where the
    nucleus pulposus is causing the symptoms of the nerve
    disorder.” The Board also found that this limitation did
    not include “systemic administration away from the site
    where the TNF-α is intended to act.”
    We agree with the Board. The Board’s conclusion that
    the disputed claims cover the administration of TNF-α
    inhibitor “directly to” the site of the nerve injury is sup-
    ported by the specification and the medical definitions of
    “local” presented by both sides. Contrary to Tobinick’s
    argument, the Board’s construction does not exclude
    administration “adjacent to disc herniation.” Because
    leakage of nucleus pulposus from a herniated disc affects
    the nerve roots of adjacent discs, a site of nerve injury
    “adjacent to disc herniation” may well be where the
    inhibitor “is intended to act.” Thus, administration
    “adjacent to disc herniation” may fall within the court’s
    construction, depending upon the precise location of the
    injury. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s claim construc-
    tion.
    WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
    The parties dispute whether the ’205 application pro-
    vides written description support for the term “adminis-
    tered locally.” Tobinick argues that the description of
    epidural administration in the application supports the
    term. Olmarker responds that the ’205 application lacks
    written description support because the specification
    includes non-local forms of administration within its
    description of local administration. We agree with Tobin-
    ick and find that the ’205 application contains sufficient
    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER                                     9
    written description support because it describes adminis-
    tering an inhibitor to the epidural space adjacent to a
    herniated disc, which is the location where nucleus pulpo-
    sus causes nerve injury.
    35 U.S.C. § 112 (2006) provides:
    The specification shall contain a written descrip-
    tion of the invention, and of the manner and pro-
    cess 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, or with
    which it is most nearly connected, to make and
    use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
    contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his
    invention.
    The purpose of the written description requirement is to
    require an inventor to disclose his invention to the public
    in such a manner as to allow “a person of skill in the art
    to recognize that the patentee invented what is claimed.”
    Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 
    734 F.3d 1332
    ,
    1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli
    Lilly & Co., 
    598 F.3d 1336
    , 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
    banc)). The written description determination depends on
    “the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity
    and predictability of the relevant technology.” 
    Id. (citing Capon
    v. Eshhar, 
    418 F.3d 1349
    , 1357-58 (Fed. Cir.
    2005)). Accordingly, we must determine whether the
    disclosure of the ’205 application “reasonably conveys to
    those skilled in the art” that Tobinick “had possession” of
    the claimed local administration. 
    Id. (internal citations
    omitted).
    “Written description is a question of fact, judged from
    the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the
    relevant filing date.” Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 
    448 F.3d 1357
    , 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
    Mahurkar, 
    935 F.2d 1555
    , 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We
    review the Board’s written description finding for sub-
    10                                    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    stantial evidence and set aside actions that are arbitrary,
    capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
    accordance with the law. 
    Id. (citing 5
    U.S.C. § 706).
    The ’205 application discloses “methods for treating
    neurological . . . disorders in humans by administering a
    [TNF-α inhibitor].” ’205 application ¶ 31. The specifica-
    tion distinguishes between local and systemic delivery of
    TNF-α inhibitor and lists several unique benefits of local
    administration. For instance, the ’205 application ex-
    plains that the “[l]ocal perispinal administration [] has
    the advantage of providing a depot of therapeutic medica-
    tion in the surrounding tissue, which will provide thera-
    peutic levels of medication to the treatment site for a
    prolonged period of time.” 
    Id. ¶ 34.
    The application also
    states that local delivery of TNF-α inhibitor “produces . . .
    greater efficacy[,] more rapid onset, [and] longer duration
    of action.” 
    Id. ¶ 114.
        The disclosure lists perispinal administration as a
    preferred form of localized administration of a TNF-α
    inhibitor. 
    Id. ¶ 49.
    The specification defines perispinal
    administration as including a number of different admin-
    istration techniques. One such technique is an epidural
    injection adjacent to the site of disc herniation. 
    Id. ¶ 47
    (“In another preferred embodiment injection of the thera-
    peutic molecule to the anatomic area adjacent to the disc
    herniation is accomplished by epidural injection.”).
    A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
    this type of epidural injection to be an injection into the
    location where the TNF-α is injuring spinal nerves. As
    explained above, nucleus pulposus leaks from an injured
    spinal disc into the epidural space, where spinal nerve
    roots are located. The ’995 specification recognizes that
    TNF-α in the epidural space harms adjacent nerve roots.
    See ’995 patent at col. 22 ll. 37-44. Thus, an epidural
    injection adjacent to the site of disc herniation will admin-
    ister the drug “directly to the site where it is intended to
    TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER                                     11
    act, that is, to the location where the nucleus pulposus is
    causing the symptoms of the nerve disorder.”
    Olmarker contends that the ’205 application does not
    adequately describe local administration because it mixes
    local administration techniques with non-local tech-
    niques. According to Olmarker, the ’205 application
    teaches that “anatomic proximity” can include an area as
    far as ten centimeters from the spine. Because that area
    is “a very large portion of the body,” Olmarker argues that
    this teaching refers to systemic, rather than local, admin-
    istration. By defining the anatomic proximity so broadly,
    Olmarker argues, the ’205 application redefines non-local
    methods of administration as local methods of admin-
    istration. Olmarker supports this argument with expert
    testimony by Dr. Andersson that administering the medi-
    cine to the anatomic area adjacent to the disc herniation
    is not local administration because it is not administered
    directly to the nerve root.
    We are not persuaded by Olmarker’s argument. The
    specification plainly describes localized, epidural injection
    of a TNF-α inhibitor. See ’205 application ¶ 47 (“In an-
    other preferred embodiment injection of the therapeutic
    molecule to the anatomic area adjacent to the disc herni-
    ation is accomplished by epidural injection.”). Because
    the epidural space is precisely the area in which the nerve
    root extends from the spinal cord, the TNF-α administra-
    tion described in the ’205 application is made “directly to
    the site where it is intended to act, that is, to the location
    where the nucleus pulposus is causing the symptoms of
    the nerve disorder.” While the “perispinal” administra-
    tion discussed in the ’205 application certainly covers
    more than just local administration techniques, this does
    not render all perispinal techniques non-local. Some
    techniques may be local, others may not. The ’205 appli-
    cation need only reasonably convey to one skilled in the
    art that Tobinick had possession of at least one embodi-
    ment that meets the Board’s construction of local admin-
    12                                 TOBINICK   v. OLMARKER
    istration. The epidural injection technique is such an
    embodiment.
    For the above reasons, we conclude that the Board’s
    finding of lack of adequate written description is not
    supported by substantial evidence.      Accordingly, we
    reverse the Board’s decision to dismiss the interference
    and remand for further proceedings.
    REVERSED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-1499

Citation Numbers: 753 F.3d 1220, 110 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1944, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186, 2014 WL 2016141

Judges: Lourie, Reyna, Wallach

Filed Date: 5/19/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024