“Gamesmanship” — of federal IP law is an old and pernicious tradecraft — in life science and pharma patent warfare. This concerns one narrow battlefront, in that war. But it is still good news, for consumers.

Today, the Supremes effectively put a lid on very broad patent claims, at least as to those that would claim patent license payments for millions of antibodies that might be useful in unknown therapies, simply by teaching one method to treat levels of serum cholesterol in the blood.

This is good news, for patients. It should mean that drug prices will require less mark-up, for paying dozens of patent licenses — each widely-far afield, from the original patent — as granted. Here is the full opinion, just decided this morning, and a bit:

Several years ago, petitioners (Amgen) obtained two patents. Together, these patents claim a monopoly over all antibodies that (1) bind to specific amino acids on a naturally occurring protein known as PCSK9, and (2) block PCSK9 from impairing the body’s mechanism for removing LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream. Soon after receiving these patents, Amgen sued respondents (Sanofi) for infringement. In response, Sanofi argued that the patents were invalid under §112 of the Patent Act.

That provision requires a patent applicant to describe its invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art…. to make and use the [invention].” 35 U. S. C. §112(a)….

…Sanofi contended that Amgen’s patents failed to meet this standard because they sought to claim for Amgen’s exclusive use potentially millions more antibodies than the company had taught scientists to make. In the end, both the district court and Federal Circuit sided with Sanofi. [Today we join them.]…

Now you know. Fascinating, and it was a unanimous liberal-conservative coalition that so held. Onward, to the Preakness… and the Solo Cup… smile.

नमस्ते