Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.
802 F.2d 1367 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An invention is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 merely because its components existed in the prior art, if there was no suggestion or motivation to combine them in the claimed manner. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as commercial success and unexpected results, must be considered as part of the prima facie case of obviousness, not as a secondary inquiry.
Facts:
- Scientists historically used immunoassays, which employ antibodies to detect antigens (foreign molecules) in bodily fluids.
- Early immunoassays, including 'sandwich' assays, used polyclonal antibodies, which are a mixture of antibodies derived from animal serum. These assays often required large quantities of antibodies and had limitations.
- In 1975, scientists Kohler and Milstein developed a revolutionary technique to produce monoclonal antibodies, which are uniform, highly specific antibodies produced by a single clone of cells (hybridomas), allowing for a virtually unlimited supply.
- Hybritech Incorporated was founded in 1978 to develop diagnostic kits using this new monoclonal antibody technology.
- At Hybritech, inventors Dr. Gary S. David and Howard E. Greene developed a process for an immunometric 'sandwich' assay that specifically used two different monoclonal antibodies with a high affinity (at least 10^8 liters/mole) to detect an antigen.
- In their invention, one monoclonal antibody is bound to a solid surface and another is labeled. These two antibodies bind to different sites on the target antigen, forming a 'sandwich' that allows for sensitive detection and quantification.
- Hybritech's diagnostic kits based on this invention, first sold in mid-1981, achieved substantial commercial success, capturing significant market share from established competitors in fields such as pregnancy and cancer detection.
Procedural Posture:
- Hybritech Incorporated sued Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of its '110 patent.
- Following a bench trial, the district court issued a judgment in favor of defendant Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.
- The district court held all 29 claims of Hybritech's '110 patent invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), for obviousness under § 103, and for failing to meet the requirements of § 112.
- Hybritech Incorporated, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's judgment of invalidity to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the combination of prior art teaching sandwich assays using polyclonal antibodies and separate prior art teaching the existence of high-affinity monoclonal antibodies render a claimed invention for a diagnostic sandwich assay using high-affinity monoclonal antibodies obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103?
Opinions:
Majority - Rich, Circuit Judge.
No, the claimed invention is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's finding of invalidity, holding that the invention as a whole would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The court reasoned that while the individual elements of the invention—sandwich assays and high-affinity monoclonal antibodies—were known, the prior art did not contain any suggestion or motivation to combine them in the manner claimed by the patent. The court rejected the 'obvious to try' standard as improper and criticized the district court for focusing on the substitution of one element for another rather than evaluating the invention as a whole. Crucially, the court held that objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as the invention's significant commercial success and the unexpected advantages it provided over existing assays (e.g., increased accuracy and speed), must be considered as an integral part of the obviousness analysis and strongly supported the conclusion of nonobviousness. The court also reversed the district court's holdings on anticipation under § 102(g) and invalidity under § 112, finding them to be unsupported by the evidence and based on legal error.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision in patent law, particularly for the biotechnology industry, as it strengthened patent protection for inventions that combined known elements in novel and beneficial ways. The case is most famous for elevating the role of 'objective evidence' or 'secondary considerations' (like commercial success, long-felt need, and unexpected results) in the obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court made it clear that this evidence is not merely 'icing on the cake' but is an essential part of the inquiry that must be considered before reaching a final conclusion. This precedent encouraged investment and innovation in nascent high-tech fields by providing a pathway to protect commercially valuable inventions that might otherwise be wrongly dismissed as simple combinations of old ideas.
