Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories - WilmerHale

appeal, we find no reversible error and affirm the lower court’s judgment in thoserespects. Innogenetics cross-appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of lawthat Abbott’s infringement was not willful. Under the standards recently articulated in Inre Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), we also affirmthat aspect of the lower court’s judgment.BACKGROUNDThe technology in this case pertains to diagnostic tools that not only detect butalso classify hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes in a biological sample, which facilitatestailoring the treatment of patients with different genotypes. The ’704 patent claims amethod of genotyping HCV based on distinct genetic sequences that can be found inthe 5 prime untranslated region (5’ UTR) of the HCV genome. This method teachesspecifically hybridizing probes, or short strands of nucleic acids, to a target sequence inthe 5’ UTR via complementary base pairing principles, and then detecting the formationof any complexes formed between the probes and the nucleic acids of the 5’ UTR.Abbott’s genotyping assay kits, like the method claimed in the ’704 patent, alsoinvolve specifically hybridizing probes to the nucleic acids of the HCV’s 5’ UTR. Thekits then detect the successful formation of any specifically hybridized complexes usingthe process of Realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Through this process, dyemolecules attached to Abbott’s probes are released and observable as fluorescentsignals after polymerase enzymes destroy the hybridized probe-target complexes.Innogenetics sued Abbott, asserting that Abbott’s genotyping assay kits infringeclaims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’704 patent. Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal,reads in its entirety as follows:2007-1145, -1161 2