Background
Harbour Antibodies BV, the Dutch subsidiary of Hong Kong biotech company Harbour BioMed, owns U.S. Patent No. 10,906,970 — the “Grosveld Patent,” named for inventor Frank Grosveld. The patent covers a proprietary transgenic mouse platform, known commercially as “Harbour Mice,” that generates fully human monoclonal antibodies. Unlike conventional platforms that produce humanized (but not fully human) antibodies, Harbour Mice carry human immunoglobulin genes, allowing them to produce antibodies that are structurally identical to those made by human immune systems. This distinction matters commercially because fully human antibodies generally produce fewer immune reactions in patients and require less post-production engineering.
Teneobio, Inc. was a biopharmaceutical company that developed its own transgenic rodent antibody discovery platform, called UniRat. Amgen acquired Teneobio in July 2021 for approximately $900 million upfront, plus up to $1.6 billion in milestone payments — a deal premised in part on Teneobio’s proprietary antibody technology. Harbour Antibodies filed suit in 2021, alleging that Teneobio’s UniRat platform infringed the Grosveld Patent by using substantially the same transgenic mouse technology that Harbour had patented.
Amgen and Teneobio defended on two fronts: first, that the UniRat platform was sufficiently different from Harbour’s claimed methods (non-infringement); and second, that the Grosveld Patent was invalid because the specification failed to adequately enable others to practice the full scope of the claimed invention (lack of enablement), and failed to demonstrate that the inventors actually possessed the full invention as claimed (lack of written description). The case went to a jury trial before Judge Noreika in June 2026.
The Court’s Holding
After approximately five days of trial (June 8–12, 2026), the jury deliberated for about three hours before returning a unanimous verdict in Harbour’s favor on all counts. The jury found that Teneobio’s UniRat platform infringed the Grosveld Patent, that the infringement was willful, and that the patent was valid — specifically rejecting Amgen’s invalidity arguments based on lack of enablement and lack of written description. The jury awarded Harbour Antibodies $20,203,704 in damages.
The willfulness finding is particularly significant. When a jury finds willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 284 permits the district court to treble the damages award — up to $60.6 million in this case. A finding of willfulness also opens the door to attorney’s fees under § 285 in exceptional cases. Amgen is expected to contest these additional remedies in post-trial proceedings.
The jury’s rejection of the invalidity defenses tracks a broader litigation theme in the biotech patent space: courts have been skeptical of enablement and written description challenges to foundational platform patents where the patent specification and prosecution history demonstrate the inventors did, in fact, possess and disclose the claimed inventions. Harbour BioMed characterized the verdict as a “landmark victory” that “reshap[es] the global antibody patent landscape.”
Key Takeaways
- Transgenic antibody platform patents remain enforceable. The jury’s willfulness finding and validation of the Grosveld Patent confirm that foundational biotech platform patents covering transgenic rodent-based antibody discovery remain a potent tool against competitors who build similar platforms.
- Willful infringement exposure up to $60.6 million. The base damages of $20.2 million could be trebled if the court exercises its discretion under § 284. Post-trial motions on willfulness and enhanced damages will be a critical next battleground.
- High-value M&A transactions don’t transfer patent rights or eliminate infringement risk. Amgen’s $900M+ acquisition of Teneobio included assuming Teneobio’s IP exposure. Companies doing IP-intensive biotech acquisitions should conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analysis of the acquired platform technologies.
- Enablement and written description challenges failed in a foundational platform patent context. Amgen’s argument that the patent’s claims outpaced the specification’s disclosure was rejected, consistent with a trend of courts upholding broad platform patents when the patent record demonstrates actual possession.
Why It Matters
The transgenic mouse antibody platform market is one of the most commercially significant segments of the biopharmaceutical industry. Fully human monoclonal antibodies underlie many of the most commercially successful drugs of the past two decades, and the platforms used to discover them are themselves high-value IP assets. The Harbour/Teneobio verdict sends a clear signal that platform patents in this space will be enforced, even against major pharmaceutical companies, and that willful infringement exposure — particularly through an acquisition that assumes a platform’s legal risks — can be substantial.
The case also highlights the growing importance of freedom-to-operate analysis in biotech M&A. Amgen paid nearly $1 billion for Teneobio’s technology; the verdict suggests it may now owe an additional $20 million (and potentially up to $60 million) as the cost of using a platform that infringed an earlier patent. For deal lawyers and IP counsel advising on biotech transactions, this case is a vivid reminder that acquired IP can come with substantial hidden liability.