Only one case being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. The case is Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Alnylam argues that the claim terms “branched alkyl and branched C10-C20 alkyl 12 should be given their ordinary and customary.” According to Alnylam, the district court “committed legal error when it narrowed the terms to exclude 2-carbon groups.” Furthermore, Alnylam argues, the district court incorrectly held “that the specification evinces a clear intent to limit the plain claim scope through lexicography.”
In its response brief, Moderna argues the “district court correctly construed the Branched Alkyl Terms based on the patents’ clear lexicography of ‘branched alkyl.’” Moderna emphasizes that the definition “has all the hallmarks of lexicography” and that the “definition itself is clear and precise.” Additionally, it emphasizes, the use of the term “unless otherwise specified” is what “cements lexicographic intent.” Furthermore, Moderna argues, the “intrinsic evidence is consistent with the express definition.”
In its reply brief, Alnylam argues Moderna did not clearly express intent to exclude alpha-branched secondary sources, because lexicography requires examining all evidence and the record does not establish clearly expressed intent. Alnylam further suggests that, even if the court finds lexicography, the evidence still requires the claims to include alpha branched secondary carbon structures.
An amicus brief was filed by Biontech Se, Biontech Manufacturing GMBH, Pfizer Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC in support of the appellees and affirmance.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Friday, April 11. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.