Monday's Court of Appeals (CoA) ruling on Factor VIII coveredseveral key issues, some of which were originally decided bythe District Court (DC) in Genentech and Chiron's favor:
Validity of Patent Reissue:
DC: Scripp's claims for a reissued patent are invalid due to lackof enablement and potential fraud.
CoA: Scripps' claims under the reissued patent are not invalid; anew trial is needed to determine the issue of the open-endedscope of the claims.
Anticipation:
DC: Scripps patent was invalid because its claims wereanticipated (described in a previous publication).
CoA: This issue must go to trial.
Infringement of Scripps' Patent
DC: Genentech and Chiron had infringed on the patent.
CoA: This issue must go to trial.
Inducement to Infringe
DC: Genentech induced Cutter Labs to infringe when it licensedFactor VIII to Cutter for production.
CoA: Agreed with the lower court.
Inequitable Conduct:
DC: Scripps did not purposefully hide prior art from the Patentand Trademark Office.
CoA: Agreed with the lower court.
Best Mode:
DC: Scripps did not disclose its best method for producingFactor VIII.
CoA: Scripps did disclose its best method.
(c) 1997 American Health Consultants. All rights reserved.