Federal Circuit Applies Prosecution History Estoppel to Issued Claims Based on Amendments Made to Previously Canceled Claims

Sep 22, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The issued claims of the ’923 Patent are generally directed to monoclonal antibodies that bind to a human cytotoxin. At issue in this case was whether the monoclonal antibodies claimed in the ’923 Patent encompassed humanized or chimeric antibodies even though the specification described only murine monoclonal antibodies. UCB argued that the claims cannot cover humanized or chimeric antibodies even though the claim language only describes the antibodies generically as “monoclonal antibodies” due to prosecution history estoppel. Specifically, UCB argued that because Yeda attempted to add claims to chimeric and humanized versions of monoclonal antibodies and those claims were rejected by the examiner for adding new matter that was not supported in the specification, Yeda could not now assert that other more generic claims, covered chimeric or humanized antibodies. The district court agreed with UCB and construed the term “monoclonal antibody” as used in the ’923 Patent to mean “a homogenous population of a single type of antibody produced via hybridomas and not including chimeric or humanized antibodies.”

On appeal, Yeda argued that its issued claims should not have been construed to exclude chimeric or humanized antibodies because the issued claims were not amended during prosecution and had not been subject to the rejections for new matter or lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and held that the prosecution history required all of the claims of the ’923 Patent to be construed as not including chimeric or humanized antibodies because Yeda yielded that claim scope in order to get its patent allowed and “the general rule is that a patent applicant cannot later obtain scope that was requested during prosecution, rejected by the Examiner, and then withdrawn by the applicant.”

UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd., No. 2015-1957 (September 8, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.