PTAB Upholds Breast Cancer Treatment Drug Patent

Oct 29, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The ’856 patent, owned by ImmunoGen Inc., covers the drug, Kadcyla, which is used to treat HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The ’856 patent claims an immunoconjugate comprised of Herceptin, which is a humanized form of a mouse monoclonal antibody, and a maytansinoid, which has cytotoxic properties. Phigenix argued that the claims of the ’856 patent were obvious in light of a prior art reference, Chari 1992. Chari 1992 also discloses an immunoconjugate of a humanized form of a mouse monoclonal antibody and a maytansinoid. Petitioner argued that it would have been obvious to substitute Herceptin for the antibody disclosed in Chari 1992. ImmunoGen contended that at the time the ’856 patent was filed in March 2000, Herceptin-maytansinoid immunoconjugates would have been expected to cause toxicity in the patient’s liver. The PTAB ruled that, given the references disclosing the toxic effect that would have been expected from a Herceptin-maytansinoid immunoconjugate, it would not have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to substitute the Chari 1992 antibody with Herceptin. 

Phigenix had also filed a petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,097,840, which was also a patent for Kadcyla. The PTAB declined to institute review in that case, finding that it was unlikely that Phigenix would prevail on its claims.

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., IPR2014-00676, Paper No. 39, (PTAB Oct. 27, 2015).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.