By Andrew Williams —

A
claim term that can have different meanings or values depending on the method
used to measure it renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible for a
potential infringer to discern the boundaries of the claim.  This is because it is not possible to
determine whether potential infringing activity will fall within the scope of
the claims.  This principle of patent law
was reaffirmed by the Federal Circuit last week in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.  The Court held that because the claim term "molecular
weight" can be calculated at least three different ways, resulting in
three different values, the asserted claims that included this value were
invalid as indefinite.  However, the
Court also held that at least some of the claims that included this term, but
which explained in the claim how to calculate "molecular weight," were
correctly found to be definite.  In
addition, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to overturn
the lower court's determinations that the asserted claims were enabled, not
obvious, and infringed.  The impact,
therefore, was that Teva's injunction of the various ANDA filers was
maintained, but the issue of the length of the injunction was remanded to the lower
court.

As
with most ANDA cases, it is important to have a grasp of the technology to
understand the issues involved in this case.  The drug at issue in this case was Copaxone®, which is marketed by Teva
for treating multiple sclerosis.  The
active ingredient is copolymer-1, or glatiramer acetate, which is a polypeptide
product that consists of four different amino acids (alanine, glutamic acid,
lysine, and tyrosine).  Copolymer-1,
however, is a mixture of individual polymer molecules with different
constituent ratios, and different molecular weights.  Therefore, it is often expressed as "average
molecular weight."  However,
statistically speaking, there are at least three ways to calculate average
molecular weight:  peak average molecular weight (M_p), number average molecular weight (M_n), and weight average
molecular weight (M_w).  One way to measure "molecular weight"
of these molecules is to use Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC).  A simplistic way to think about SEC is as a technique
that utilizes a column "sieve" that allows different size (or weight)
molecules to leave (elute) the column at different times.  If the column is calibrated, you can
determine the size or weight of the molecules in question depending on when
they elute from the column.  The peak
average molecular weight (M_p)
is the molecular weight of the most abundant molecule in the sample, which
occurs as the highest peak in the elution profile.  The number average molecular weight (M_n) is the combined total
mass of all of the molecules in the sample divided by the total number of
molecules.  Judge Moore, writing for the
three-judge panel, chose to not define weight average molecular weight (M_w), instead referring to it
as "still another average molecular weight measure that is calculated
differently from M_p and M_n."  For readers that are curious, weight average
molecular weight (M_w) is
similar to number average molecular weight, except instead of dividing the
sample by total number of molecules, you take into account the weight fraction
of each molecule.  Therefore, the larger
the molecule, the more "weight" it will have in the value.

There
is a second way to express molecular weight, which was used in the
patents-in-suit in the so-called "Group II" claims.  Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,054,430 is representative
of these Group II claims:

    1. Copolymer-1 having over 75% of its molar fraction within the molecular
weight range from about 2 kDa to about 20 kDa, prepared by a process comprising
the steps of:
    reacting protected copolymer-1 with hydrobromic acid to form
trifluoroacetyl copolymer-1 having over 75% of its molar fraction within the
molecular weight range from about 2 kDa to about 20 kDa, wherein said reaction
takes place for a time and at a temperature predetermined by test reaction, and
    treating said trifluoroacetyl copolymer-1 having over 75% of its molar
fraction within the molecular weight range from about 2 kDa to about 20 kDa
with aqueous piperidine solution to form copolymer-1 having over 75% of its
molar fraction within the molecular weight range from about 2kDa to about
20kDa.

In
this case, the molecular weight is not expressed as a statistical measure, but
rather the percentage of copolymer-1 molecules that fall within a defined
range.  As a result, the measurement is
not dependent on the type of calculation performed because it requires a
determination of the actual values.

The
procedural posture of this case is typical for an ANDA case (notwithstanding
the fact that there appear to be generic companies on both sides of the "V").  Teva holds the NDA for Copaxone®, for which
eight patents are listed in the Orange Book.  Several companies separately submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications
(ANDAs) to market generic versions of this drug.  Teva sued these companies for patent
infringement, and at least seven of the eight Orange Book listed patents were
asserted.  All seven of these patents
shared the same specification, because they descended from the same parent, U.S. Patent No. 5,800,808 ("the '808 patent"), which was also asserted in
this case.  This is significant because
the '808 patent was filed on May 22, 1995, and therefore has a later expiration
date than all of the other patents (seventeen years from date of issuance, or
Sept. 1, 2015, instead of May 24, 2014, the expiration date of the remaining
patents).  Thus, when the Court
determined the claims of the '808 patent to be indefinite, it remanded the case
to the lower court to determine the impact this would have on the length of the
injunction.  As for the lower court's
findings, it defined the term "molecular weight" in the Group I
claims as peak average molecular weight (M_p),
and rejected the argument that the term was insolubly ambiguous.  It also held that all of the asserted claims
were infringed, and that they were not invalid for obviousness or lack of
enablement.  The ANDA filers
appealed.

Indefiniteness

The
Appellants challenged the lower court's determination that "molecular
weight" could be defined, because one of skill in the art would not
understand which measurement (M_p,
M_w, M_n, or something else) should
be used.  The specification of the
patents-in-suit was silent as to which measurement was appropriate, other than
to describe the use of SEC (which can be used to obtain all three values).  Statements made in the prosecution history
compounded the problem.  In response to
an indefiniteness rejection in one of the patents, the patentees said that "[o]ne
of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing the specification, would
understand that 'average molecular weight' refers to the molecular weight at
the peak of the molecular weight distribution curve," or M_p.  However, in response to an identical
rejection in an earlier related application, the patentees said that ""[o]ne
of ordinary skill in the art could understand that kilodalton units implies
[sic] a weight average molecular weight," or M_w.

Teva
argued that one skilled in the art would have understood that average molecular
weight could only be M_p.  Teva asserted that use of SEC without more
suggests M_p because
determining M_n and M_w required additional
calculations.  The Court appeared
skeptical of this argument, because SEC can be used to calculate all three
values.  Teva also downplayed the
prosecution history by explaining that a skilled artisan would recognize that
the statement in the earlier application was false — because "kilodalton
units" does not imply weight average.  Teva appears to have alleged that the second statement rectified the
earlier misstatement.  However, there is
no indication that the patentees in the later application retracted the earlier
statement.  Therefore, the Court was left
with two contradictory statements that could not be rectified.  As such, the claims in Group I were held to
be indefinite.

However,
the claims in Group II survived the invalidity challenge.  The Appellants argued that the claim term "molecular
weight" was the same in all of the asserted claims, and therefore they
should all rise and fall together.  However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that the use of the term "molecular
weight" in these claims was not in reference to an average, but rather to
a range, as shown in the representative claim above.  Therefore, because the claim had exact values
instead of statistical measures, the scope was readily ascertainable.

Enablement

Appellants
also alleged that the claims were not enabled because the specification did not
specify how the SEC column should be calibrated, and therefore either
self-standards or universal calibration could be used.  They argued that copolymer-1 is complex and
exhibits an unpredictable behavior.  In
fact, they pointed to Teva's difficulties in identifying an appropriate
calibration method.

The
Federal Circuit found no clear error with the fact finding of the lower
court.  The lower court weighed the
testimony of the experts, and found Teva's expert to be more convincing.  Moreover, there was no evidence that Teva's
own alleged difficulties were based on faulty measurements as opposed to
regulatory or scale-up issues.  As a
result, the lower court's determination was affirmed.

Obviousness

Appellants
also challenged the lower court's holding that the patents at issue would not
have been obvious in view of the prior art.  The closest prior art reference disclosed compounds with a molecular
weight higher than 10 kDa.  Appellants
alleged that there was no evidence that copolymer-1 with a molecular weight
less than 10 kDa exhibits an improved toxicity profile over the prior art.  However, the Federal Circuit found no error
with the District Court's determination that there was a preference in the
prior art for higher molecule weight compounds, and therefore it taught away
from the claimed invention.  Also, the
Court noted that Copaxone® was coextensive with the asserted claims.  Therefore, a nexus was presumed for purposes
of the undisputed commercial success of the drug product, and Appellants had
not rebutted this presumption.  As a
result, because the Appellants failed to establish the obviousness of the
claimed invention, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Infringement

Finally,
Appellants challenged the finding of infringement.  First, they challenged the Court's
construction of the term "approximately" in relation to the molar
ratio of the amino acid subunits. 
However, "approximately" was not a claim term, but instead it
was found in a claim term definition. 
The term at issue was "copolymer-1" and the District Court
construed it to mean "a mixture of polypeptides composed of alanine,
glutamic acid, lysine, and tyrosine in a molar ratio of approximately 6:2:5:1."  As such, the application of the term "approximately"
was part of the infringement analysis, not of claim construction, and therefore
the standard of review was clearly error.

In
making the infringement analysis, the lower court determined that a ratio of
6:2:5:1 was equivalent to a percentage ratio of 42.9%, 14.3%, 35.7%, and
7.1%.  In comparison, Mylan's ratio was
42.7%, 14.4%, 33.6%, 9.2% (the ratio for Sandoz was comparable, so only Mylan's
product will be discussed here).  The
court calculated that this aggregate difference was only 4.5%.  As compared with the prior art, which
tolerated aggregate differences of 12%, it found the accused products to fall
within the scope of the claims. 
Appellants asserted that the relative proportions were important, not
the aggregate.  Therefore, because Mylan's
ratios were 4.6:1.6:3.7:1.0, the ratio of lysine to tyrosine was 3.7:1.0, and
therefore deviated more than 16% from the ratio of 5.0:1.0.  The Federal Circuit agreed with Teva,
however, that Appellants were performing a "mathematical sleight of hand."  In essence, they were normalizing the ratio
to the least abundant amino acid, tyrosine, which will skew the results.  Ultimately, the Federal Circuit found that
the lower court did not clearly err by looking at the aggregate percentage
difference and finding it less than 5% from the ideal.

Finally,
Appellants asserted that the Teva had disclaimed copolymer-1 compositions having
M_w greater than
10kDa.  The basis for this assertion was
that the patentees had compared the pending claims to a reference describing
copolymer-1 with a minimum molecular weight of 10 kDa, stating that the
then-pending claims cover copolymer-1 having a molecular weight of about 5 to 9
kDa.  Somewhat ironically, the Federal
Circuit found that there was no a clear disavowal of the claim scope, because
it was unclear that the patentees were referring to M_w.  Therefore,
for almost the same reason that some of the claims were found to be indefinite,
the Court found that there was no disavowal, and therefore infringement
determination was affirmed.

Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Panel:  Chief Judge Rader, Circuit Judge Moore, and
District Judge Benson
Opinion
by Circuit Judge Moore