礼来都看不惯安进关于PSCK9这种专利了。直接说安进的这种专利布局管的太宽，垄断靶点扼杀创新。
以往的专利都是封杀抄袭结构。安进的PSCK9专利只要你binds到PSCK9就算侵权。就算你的抗体和我完全不一样，但是只要是结合PSCK9靶点就算侵权。
如果专利可以这么布局那么以后每个靶点都只能一家企业垄断。其他人都是侵权。

Turning to the controversy before this Court, the disputed claims cover a genus of antibodies that bind to a naturally occurring antigen, PCSK9. The claims 3 Appellees’ January 27, 2017 Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for a Stay at page 25. Case: 17-1480 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 73 Page: 8 Filed: 02/23/2017 4 do not recite any structural features of the antibodies per se – instead the claims only recite various functional characteristics, e.g., “binds” to PCSK9. As a foundation to all of its proffered evidence that these claims were adequately described, Amgen relied on the so-called “newly-characterized antigen test.” Because of its foundational relationship to the written description issues in this case, the “newly-characterized antigen test” is at the core of an unjustifiably unique application of law that threatens innovative antibody drug development

This Court should reaffirm that purely functional antibody genus claims, like those before this Court, lack written description when their supporting disclosures distinguish the claimed genus solely by what they do rather than by what they are. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, unless this Court provides definitive instruction regarding proper application of the written description requirement to functionally-defined antibody claims, and firmly rejects the newly characterized antigen test as a means for complying with the written description requirement, such claims shall continue to improperly tax antibody innovation leading to more uncertainty in a burgeoning area of drug development, more expensive antibody medicines, and delays or removal (as Amgen seek here) of alternative treatment options for patients and payers.