Petitioner Apotex asserted that claims directed to fosaprepitant were obvious, but the PTAB finds that there was no valid lead compound, so the patent is not obvious.
Apotex Bid to Steal Mylan Exclusivity on Benicar
In this Hatch-Waxman action, Apotex is attempting to trigger a forfeiture event, that if successful, will cause Mylan to forfeit its 180-day exclusivity for a generic copy of Benicar®, olmesartan medoximil, that Mylan is otherwise eligible to receive.
ATELVIA® Patents Obvious at District Court
The court therefore found clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention (in 2005) would have been motivated to use EDTA in the claimed amounts with a reasonable expectation of success.
Prosecution Laches as Defense to Infringement — Cancer Res. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
Prosecution laches is an equitable defense to a charge of patent infringement, that “may render a patent unenforceable when it has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution” that constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system.
Obviousness in prodrugs — Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Mylan
Proof of obviousness based on structural similarity requires clear and convincing evidence that a medicinal chemist of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select and then to modify a prior art compound (e.g., a lead compound) to arrive at a claimed compound with a reasonable expectation that the new compound would have similar or improved properties compared with the old.
Donepezil: Teva has standing in declaratory judgement action that it doesn’t infringe listed patents
Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Eisai Co., Ltd., No. 2009-1593 (Fed. Cir. 10/6/2010). Ranbaxy was first-filer (pre-MMA) for donepezil of an ANDA with a “paragraph IV” certification, and Teva was a subsequent filer with a paragraph IV certification. Teva obtained tentative approval for its ANDA, but was prevented from marketing by Ranbaxy’s first-filing. Teva sued […]
Obviousness upheld: Purdue Pharma Products L.P. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
No. 2009-1553 (Fed. Cir. 6/3/2010) (non precedential). Par filed an ANDA for once daily tramadol, with PIV cert’s against two patents. Purdue sued, and Par counterclaimed that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement and written description, invalid under § 103 for obviousness, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. […]
Stay In Touch!
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
Search
Recent Posts
- Immunogen Antibody Conjugate Patent Survives IPR
- Crowd Funding Boost? Crowd Funding Patent Invalidated by Kickstarter
- Apotex loses IPR on Prodrug Obviousness (Institution Denied)
- You think your competitor’s patent is junk? Don’t tell it to the judge
- Means-Plus-Function Software Claims Must Have an Underlying Algorithm
Links
Tags
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1
35 U.S.C. § 156
35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5)
35 USC § 112(a)
ANDA
anticipation
assignments
award of attorney fees
best mode
bioequivalence
Claim construction
declaratory judgment action
defenses to infringement
deference to agency review
definiteness
DNA sequence claims
Doctrine of Equivalents
enablement
Equitable estoppel
functional claim language
Hatch-Waxman litigation
indefiniteness
inequitable conduct
infringement dismissed
invalidity
inventorship
JMOL
laches
means-plus-function
nonobvious
numeric ranges
obviousness
Obviousness upheld
paragraph IV certifications
patent license
peptide sequence claims
pharmaceutical formulations
priority claims
reissue patent
secondary considerations
Standing to sue
subject matter jurisdiction
trade secrets
trigger of exclusivity
written description