Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech Inc.

Good Law
238 F. Supp. 3d 1177·2017 WL 733217·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26424
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2017Case No. 15-cv-01238-BLFCalifornia9,266 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Freeman, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 257]

Plaintiff Phigenix, Inc. (“Phigenix”) alleges that Defendant Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,080,534 (“the ’534 patent”) based on Kadcyla, a drug targeting a type of metastatic breast cancer. Mot. 2, ECF 257. Before the Court is Genentech’s motion for summary judgment for finding the ’534 patent invalid on grounds of inadequate written description and anticipation. ECF 198. The Court, having considered the briefing submitted by the parties and the oral argument presented at the hearing on January 5, 2017, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Genen-tech’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

From the parties’ briefing, and evidence, the following facts relevant to the pending motion for summary judgment are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Phigenix is a pharmaceutical and biomedical research company founded in 2007 by Dr. Carlton D. Donald, who is a named inventor on numerous issued and pending patents and patent applications, including the ’534 patent. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶1, ECF 21. The ’534 patent is titled “Targeting PAX2 for the Treatment of Breast…

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.