Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.

Good Law
268 F. Supp. 2d 1148·2002 WL 32124007·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19148
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 24, 2002CIV.S-00-1252 WBS GGCalifornia11,756 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PRIORITY, ANTICIPATION, WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, EN-ABLEMENT, BEST MODE, UTILITY

In a separate order, the court has determined that Genentech’s product, Hercep-tin, infringes Chiron’s U.S. Patent No. 6,054,561 (“ ’561 patent”). Chiron and Genentech now bring cross motions for summary judgment on Genentech’s anticipation, written description and enablement defenses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 , 112. These cross motions address the central question of whether the ’561 patent is entitled to the benefit of the 1984, 1985, and/or 1986 filing dates of three patent applications in the ’561 patent family. Chiron also moves for summary judgment on Gen-entech’s best mode and utility defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On February 8, 1984, Chiron’s predecessor in interest, Cetus, filed the first in what was to become a long line of patent applications that led to the issuance of the ’561 patent. The 1984 application discusses monoclonal antibodies that bind to human breast cancer, and identifies several such antibodies, including one known as 454 Cll. The specification of the 1984 application describes how the antibodies were produced…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.