The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today reversed a jury verdict for Juno Therapeutics and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (Juno), wiping out a $1.2 billion judgment for the entities. The CAFC found that the jury’s verdict with respect to written description was not supported by substantial evidence. The case relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190, owned by Sloan Kettering, which is titled “Nucleic Acids Encoding Chimeric T Cell Receptors.” The patent generally covers cancer immunotherapy technology. Juno sued Kite Pharma, Inc. for infringement of the ‘190 patent through the sale of its YESCARTA product. Kite countersued, seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. The jury ultimately found in Juno’s favor and, in post-trial briefs, Kite moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on several grounds, including that the claims were not supported by sufficient written description. The district court denied JMOL and Kite appealed.
Litigation
- How Patent Owners Should Be Rethinking Venue Selection and Case Strategy in a World Without Waco
- Amicus Brief Backing Inventor’s Eligibility Petition to SCOTUS Says 101 Exceptions Constitute ‘Judicial Legislation’
- Miami Beware: Patent Clouds Are Quickly Approaching the Sunshine State
- CAFC Affirms Water Heater Infringement Ruling Based on District Court Claim Construction
- CAFC Upholds PTAB’s Finding that Samsung Failed to Prove Magnetic Stripe Emulator Claims Obvious
Recent Posts
- The Copyright Claims Board: A Venue for Pursuing Actual or Statutory Damages Impacting Both Registered and Unregistered Works
- IP Goes Pop! – Intellectual Property and a ‘Wacky’ Professor – Brands and Inventions in the Springfield Universe, Part II
- How Patent Owners Should Be Rethinking Venue Selection and Case Strategy in a World Without Waco
- Amicus Brief Backing Inventor’s Eligibility Petition to SCOTUS Says 101 Exceptions Constitute ‘Judicial Legislation’
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 12: Canada to Add Resale Royalties to Copyright Law, Fifth Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Evidence in ‘Call of Duty’ Copyright Suit, and Ninth Circuit Rejects Trademark Appeal in Yoga Pants Case