Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-1691 · judgment October 30, 2019


Certiorari denied · January 19, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 8% cert probability (95% interval 5%–11%)

Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Questions presented

The Patent Act provides that patents must “contain a written description of the invention” in “such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The law has long recognized that patents including “genus” claims—i.e., claims that identify a class of substances—can satisfy § 112(a). In the field of pharmaceuticals, inventing a genus of compounds is often the key to lifesaving medical innovation, and spelling out each potential embodiment—that is, every chemical variant with the same property—can be practically impossible. This petition presents two related questions:

  1. Whether, as the Federal Circuit has held, a genus claim is not enabled “as a matter of law” if it encompasses a large number of compounds—or whether, as this Court has recognized, enablement is a context-specific jury question; and

  2. Whether, as the Federal Circuit has held, § 112(a) contains a separate “possession” requirement—or whether, as the statute provides, § 112(a) sets forth a single substantive requirement of “a written description of the invention” sufficient “to enable any person skilled in the art … to make and use the same.”

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Gregory Andrew Castanias
Jones Day

For respondent
E. Joshua Rosenkranz
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
3 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Jan 19 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Dec 30 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
  3. Dec 30 2020
    Reply of petitioners Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari filed. (Distributed)
  4. Dec 16 2020
    Brief of respondent Gilead Sciences, Inc. in opposition filed.
  5. Nov 16 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC. filed.
  6. Nov 16 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed.
  7. Nov 16 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Amgen Inc. filed.
  8. Nov 02 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 16, 2020.
  9. Oct 30 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 16, 2020 to December 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  10. Oct 16 2020
    Response Requested. (Due November 16, 2020)
  11. Oct 14 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
  12. Oct 09 2020
    Waiver of right of respondent Gilead Sciences, Inc. to respond filed.
  13. Sep 21 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 26, 2020)