I don't usually write about district court decisions, but
the patent indefiniteness ruling in Andrulis Pharmaceuticals
Corp. v. Celgene Corp. (D. Del., July 26, 2015), caught my
attention. The court held the asserted claim indefinite based on
the term "enhanced," not because it was a qualitative
term, but because "it could mean less than additive, additive,
or greater than additive." Did the Applicant's cautious
language during prosecution lead to the court's finding?
The Patent At Issue
The patent at issue was Andrulis's U.S. Patent 6,140,346, and claim 2 was the
asserted claim:
2. A method for the treatment of
neoplastic diseases in a mammal which comprises administering to
said afflicted mammal enhanced
therapeutically-effective amounts of thalidomide in combination
with effective amounts of other alkylating agent selected from the
group consisting of mechlorethamine, cyclophosphamide, ifosamide,
melphalan, chlorambucil, busulfan, thiotepa, carmustine,
