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.
Tag Archives: nonobvious
In this Hatch-Waxman case, Bristol-Myers Squibb, owner of the drug entecavir (sold as Baraclude®, indicated for hepatitis B (HBV) infection), sued Teva Pharmaceuticals for patent infringement. Teva responded that the patent (the only patent at issue was US5206244, priority date 10/18/1990), which claims the chemical structure of entecavir, was obvious. The district court found in …
PTAB Obviousness Finding Reversed in Institut Pasteur GIIE Endonuclease Patents
Contact the author: Andrew Berks Inst. Pasteur v. Focarino, No. 2012-1485 (Fed. Cir. 12/30/2013) Three patents were at issue, US6610545, US6833252, and US7309605, all based on an application originally filed 5/6/1992 and expired on 5/6/2012. The patents disclose group I intron encoded (GIIE) endonucleases. GIIE endonucleases are valuable research tools that are highly specific in selecting …
Continue reading “PTAB Obviousness Finding Reversed in Institut Pasteur GIIE Endonuclease Patents”
Obviousness in view of references considered in examination – Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.
Tokai owned three patents at issue, pertaining to lighters with an elongated rod, useful for lighting barbecue grills. Easton makes competitive products. Tokai sued Easton for patent infringement. The diputed feature was a safety device requiring the user to depress a button while pulling the trigger. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., No. 2010-1057 (Fed. …
Continue reading “Obviousness in view of references considered in examination – Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.”
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.
Vizio, Inc. v. ITC
No. 2009-1386 (Fed. Cir. 5/26/2010). Funai owns the ‘974 patent that improves “channel latency,” a delay in digital TV decoders while data is received. Funai brought an action at the ITC alleging that defendants imported infringing TV’s. The ITC concluded that certain claims of the ‘974 patent were valid and enforceable, and infringed by defendants. …