Sequence Listings SEQIDNO - Ajinomoto Sues ADM Over Amino Acid Patent

File Upload Utility

Harbor Consulting is pleased to announce that we now have a file upload utility. If you wish to send documents that exceed 10-15 MB, please call our office and we will provide you with a secure login, password, and link to the file upload utility on our server.

Client Testimonials

My firm has worked with Harbor Consulting IP Services, Inc. for many years. The company produces the highest quality work in a very thorough and professional manner. Last minute and/or "difficult" cases are always handled on time. James Coburn and his staff are valued consultants with a deep understanding of USPTO procedure.

Robert L. Buchanan, Esq.
Partner - Edwards & Angell, LLP

Contact Information

Harbor Consulting IP Services
1500A Lafayette Rd. #262
Portsmouth, NH 03801

Phone: 800-318-3021
Fax: 877-775-7756
Email: general@seqidno.com

Ajinomoto Sues ADM Over Amino Acid Patent

Ajinomoto Company, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) of Illinois in United States District Court District of Delaware on April 6, 1995. Ajinomoto is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,278,765 (the ‘765 patent) to Debabov et al., entitled “Method for Preparing Strains Which Produce Amino Acids” (“the patented process”). Ajinomoto is a manufacturer of amino acids and has been engaged in threonine production for feed additive since 1991.

Ajinomoto alleges that ADM has practiced the patented process for producing threonine and imported and used the threonine made by the patented process in the United States. Consequently, Ajinomoto requests an injunction against continued infringement by ADM, as well as damages for past and willful infringement, attorneys fees and costs.

Claim 1 of the ‘765 patent is a process for preparing bacterial strains that produce amino acids. The steps of the claim include:

combining a chromosome DNA fragment of a donor bacterium containing genes controlling the synthesis of a selected amino acid and having a mutation which destroys the negative regulation of the synthesis of the amino acid, with a plasmid DNA to form a hybrid DNA molecule;
transforming with the hybrid DNA molecule a recipient donor bacterium having a mutation which blocks the synthesis of the selected amino acid in the strain and a mutation partially blocking the related step of metabolism of the amino acid, to yield a bacterial strain possessing increased productivity of the selected amino acid.

ADM’s answer to the complaint asserts that Ajinomoto is estopped from contending that the ‘765 claims may be construed to cover any alleged acts of infringement by ADM (ADM’s answer, affirmative defense no. 7). Moreover, ADM contends that “[t]he ‘765 patent is invalid and void because it fails to meet the conditions and requirements for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code” (ADM’s answer, affirmative defense no. 8). As a result, ADM requests judgment that the ‘765 patent is invalid and not infringed. ADM also filed a demand for a jury trial and moved for a transfer of the case to the Central District of Illinois. The motion of transfer was denied on August 29, 1995. A trial date has not been set.