Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

Filing 264

Disregard. Unsigned Order. See 268 . (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2011) Modified on 6/10/2011 (psglc2, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

GENENTECH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 10-02037 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING GENENTECH’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 178)

16

Plaintiff Genentech Inc. (“Genentech”) filed this motion to compel Defendant The Trustees

17

of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”) to fully respond to Genentech‟s interrogatory no. 2 and

18

to Genentech‟s narrowed version of requests for production no. 35 and no. 68. The court heard

19

oral argument on May 24, 2011.

20

This dispute centers around the question of the appropriate scope of discovery related to the

21

defenses of enablement and written description in life sciences patent cases. Having considered the

22

written briefs and oral argument, the motion to compel is GRANTED.

23

I. BACKGROUND

24

On July 27, 2011, Genentech served its first set of interrogatories on Penn, including

25
26
27

interrogatory no. 2, which states:
Identify anyone whom [Penn] is aware of having experience or knowledge or
working in the field of cancer research, diagnosis and therapy who understood in or
before 1994 that human non-cancer breast cells overexpress p185; all such human
non-cancer breast cell(s) known in or before 1994 to overexpress p185; any and all

28
1
Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER

Persons with knowledge of such cells; and all Documents and Things supporting
Your response.1

1
2

Penn responded with on August 26, 2010 and supplemented its response on October 25, 2010. In
3
sum, Penn objected to the interrogatory on several grounds and responded by identifying the three
4
5
6

inventors of the „752 patent, a draft of a manuscript addressing experiments on cells in the breast
tissue of mice described in the „752 patent, the „752, and “materials designated under Patent L-R 32” and listing the Bates Numbers of the documents supporting that response.

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

On July 27, 2010, Genentech served its first request for production of documents and on
September 17, 2010 served its second request for production of documents. Genentech asks the
court to compel production responsive to a narrowed request for production combining request no.
35 and no. 68 request as follows:

11

13

Documents from the laboratory of inventor Mark Green pertaining to the
development, characterization and testing of p185 antibodies for use in the
treatment or prevention of cancer, including documents showing competitive
binding with 7.16.4 and/or down regulation of the p185 receptor.2

14

Penn objected that work beyond the experiments directly related to the „752 patent was

12

15

irrelevant to this litigation and so substantial as to be overly burdensome to produce. Penn

16

produced the inventor‟s CVs, published and submitted articles, and p185-related grant submissions.

17

II. LEGAL STANDARD

18

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

19

matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. Relevant information need not be admissible

20

at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

21

evidence. The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it is unreasonably

22

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, or

23

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

24
25
26
1

4/19/11 Declaration of Sarah B. Faulkner Ex. D. (Docket No. 79-1) (“Faulkner Decl.”).

2

See Faulkner Decl. Ex. M (narrowing requests), Ex. K (request no. 35), Ex. L (request no. 68).

27
28

2
Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER

1
III. DISCUSSION

2
3

A. INTERROGATORY NO. 2

4

Genentech argues that Penn‟s responses failed to identify any cells. As to the documents

5

identified in the response by Bates Number, Genentech argues they are non-responsive based on

6

Penn‟s explanation of their content in its opposition. Genentech further argues that Penn‟s

7

identification of thousands of pages of documents without any further details violates Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 33(d). Essentially, Genentech argues that Penn‟s response does nothing more than identify the

9

three inventors of the ‟752 patent.
Penn responds that it has already described the non-cancer, p185 overexpressing breast

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

cells on which Herceptin acts in the relevant human patient population in its response to
interrogatory no. 11. Penn further responds that Genentech‟s interrogatory requires Penn to do
nothing less than survey every single member of the Penn community and ask what he believed
every single individual involved with cancer in the world knew in 1994 regarding the p185
overexpressing cells that were not cancer cells, all of which Penn argues would not be relevant and
would be extremely burdensome. A better approach, Penn suggests, is to have Genentech simply
retain an expert to conduct a literature survey to determine the state of public knowledge in 1994.
The court finds that interrogatory no. 2 seeks information distinct from Penn‟s response to
interrogatory no. 11 and that this information is relevant to Genentech‟s invalidity contentions.
Interrogatory no. 2 is directed specifically to Genentech‟s non-enablement and lack of written

20
description defenses that Penn cannot claim to have invented a method of treating non-cancer
21
22
23

breast cells that overexpress p185 in humans because those cells were not known to exist by either
the inventors or others of skill in the art and thus seeks information limited to cells known in or
before 1994.3 Interrogatory no. 11, on the other hand, is not time-limited, and Penn could and did

24
3

25
26
27
28

Although related, the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 are
distinct. See Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(“Since its inception, this court has consistently held that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written
description requirement separate from enablement.”); Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358
F. 3d 916, 921 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Although there is often significant overlap, they are nonetheless
independent of each other. An invention may be described without being enabled, and vice
versa”). The written description requirement serves to “prevent an applicant from later asserting
that he invented that which he did not.” Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, 314 F.3d 1313, 1330
3
Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER

1

respond by citing to studies that occurred well after 1994.4 Furthermore, the court is unpersuaded

2

by Penn‟s argument that this information can only be obtained by Penn by an extensive survey of

3

thousands of people.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Penn shall respond to Genentech‟s

4
5

interrogatory no. 2 by providing a narrative response, with citations to specific page numbers in the

6

documents for support, based on information disclosed in interviews of the three inventors, the

7

people that worked with those three inventors on characterizing and working with anti-p185

8

antibodies, anyone listed in Faulkner Reply Decl. Ex. A with relevant knowledge, and any other

9

people specifically identified as appropriate sources by the aforementioned individuals.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

B. NARROWED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 AND NO. 68
Genentech argues that a portion of the documents sought in its narrowed request for

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

production, regarding Mark Greene‟s (“Greene”) laboratory‟s failed attempts to develop effective
antibodies to human p185, as opposed to mouse p185, are relevant to its enablement and written
description defenses.5 According to Genentech, the very fact that experimental antibodies failed to
(Fed. Cir. 2003). The separate enablement requirement ensures that “the public knowledge is
enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the
claims.” Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F3d. 1190, 1195-96
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Both standards, however, are determined as of the effective filing date of the
patent. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Plant Genetic
Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
4

19

See 5/10/11 Declaration of Sarah B. Faulkner in Supp. of Reply (Docket No. 218-1) (“Faulkner
Reply Decl.”) Ex B.

20

5

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp., 24 F.3d 1347, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]n inventor‟s failed attempts to practice an invention are relevant evidence of
non-enablement”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“If an
inventor attempts but fails to enable his invention in a commercial product that purports to be an
embodiment of the patented invention, that is strong evidence that the patent specification lacks
enablement”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding
non-enablement and explaining that “[t]he inventors admitted that they tried unsuccessfully to
produce a [claimed invention] and that producing such a system would have required more
experimentation and testing.”); AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244-45 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(“[G]iven the specification‟s teaching away from the subject matter that was eventually claimed
and AK Steel's own failures to make and use the later claimed invention at the time of the
application, the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact
relating to undue experimentation as it relates to enablement.”); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene,
Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The court noted that the record is replete with the
inventor's own failed attempts to control the expression of other genes in prokaryotes or eukaryotes
using antisense technology.”).
4
Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER

1

meet the requirements of the patent claims make any such Greene studies relevant to Genentech‟s

2

enablement defense. While both parties agree that experiments on molecules that are likely to

3

compete with 7.16.4 for binding to p185 compose one such category of failed attempts, Genentech

4

contends that failed experiments at binding any molecule to human p185 are relevant because they

5

also would tend to prove Genentech‟s claim that Greene did not enable or possess what he claimed.
Penn argues that the request for production is overly broad because it seeks information

6

about antibodies that are outside the scope of the „752 patent— specifically, antibodies that do not

8

compete with the 7.16.4 antibody for binding to p185.6 Penn states that it has already produced

9

Greene‟s laboratory notebooks associated with experiments creating binding molecules based on

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

7.16.4 and that therefore are likely to compete with 7.16.4. Penn further argues that because the

11

„752 patent claims a method of treatment using a particular type of antibody, not the antibody

12
13

itself, a failed attempt to characterize such an antibody is not equivalent to a failed attempt to
practice the invention.
Although the claims include additional requirements such that they do not cover the use of

14
15
16
17
18

every antibody that binds to human p185, information about Greene‟s inability to find any antibody
that would bind to human p185 is discoverable under Novo Nordisk and Ormco. The court is not
persuaded that those cases do not apply here because the „752 patent claims a method of treatment
rather than one or more particular antibodies. The reason is that, without the antibody, the method
cannot be practiced. Furthermore, Penn has not cited any authority for its contention that discovery

19

pertaining to an inventor‟s failed experimentation must be limited to information about attempts

20
that successfully meet some limitations—such as identifying an antibody that competes with 7.16.4
21
22

for binding to p185—but not others—such as that antibody binding to human p185. Even if such
information is ultimately deemed to be inadmissible on the questions of enablement and written

23
24
25
26
27
28

Claim 1 recites “an antibody which competes with an antibody produced by cell line [American
Type Culture Collection (“ATCC”)] Deposit No. 10493.” „752 Patent (Docket No. 7-1) at 8:52-54.
The patent notes that “cell line producing monoclonal antibody 7.16.4 was deposited in the
[ATCC] . . . and has accession number HB 10493.” Id. at 6:555-59. At oral argument, counsel for
Genentech stated that the parties agree that claim 1 requires an antibody that competes with an
antibody produced by cell line ATCC Deposit No. 10493. Counsel clarified, however, that the
parties have not agreed specifically that the antibody produced by that cell line is 7.16.4. FTR
audio recording, May 24, 2011, 11:25:10 - 11:25:36 a.m.
6

5
Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER

1

description, the requested discovery is certainly “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2

admissible evidence.”7 In sum, Genentech has demonstrated that all documents from Greene‟s

3

laboratory pertaining to failed attempts to use human-p185 antibodies to treat or prevent cancer,

4

including documents showing testing of competitive binding with 7.16.4 and/or down regulation of

5

the human-p185 receptor, should be produced.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as part of its production responsive to the

6
7

narrowed request, Penn shall produce all documents from Greene‟s laboratory pertaining to the

8

development, characterization or testing of human-p185 antibodies for use in the treatment or

9

prevention of cancer. This production shall include documents pertaining to any failed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

experiments, not merely those directed to antibodies that compete with 7.16.4. If Penn deems such

11

a production unduly burdensome, Penn may make the materials available to Genentech for

12

inspection.
IV. CONCLUSION

13

Penn shall comply with this order no later than June 19, 2011.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
6

Case No.: 10-2037
ORDER