Taking the Lead – Small Molecule Nonobviousness

Posted by David Cauble on Nov 30, 2017

David Cauble

IPR is a common way to challenge patents covering pharmaceutical compounds, often on grounds of obviousness. As illustrated in the recent decision in in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. AstraZeneca (IPR2015-01340), such IPRs may rely on a “lead compound analysis” involving a two-prong inquiry that asks: (i) whether a structurally similar prior art compound would have been selected as a “lead compound” and (ii) whether there was motivation to modify that compound to arrive at the claimed compound.

Read More

Topics: BioPharma, Obviousness

Addressing Issues Inherent to Inherency

Posted by Chelsea Witte-Garcia on Nov 6, 2017

Chelsea Witte-Garcia

It is not uncommon in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields to file new patent applications based on results of a clinical trial or discovery of a newly appreciated feature of a compound. However, results-based claim language, such as pharmacokinetic or drug release profiles, may not confer patentable weight, as shown in a recent IPR decision.

Read More

Topics: BioPharma, Inherency

Can I Get A Witness—With the Right Experience at the Relevant Time?

Posted by Kevin MacDonald on Oct 27, 2017

Kevin MacDonald

No matter whether you are the patent owner or petitioner in an IPR, expert witness testimony is an important aspect of building your case. The Board relies on expert witnesses to provide insight into the often highly technical aspects of a given case, and will inevitably choose to give more weight to the testimony of one side’s witness over the other. This can be especially true when the testimony of the opposing experts is in direct conflict. So how does the Board choose which expert testimony to give more weight? Sometimes it’s a question of timing, as in the recent decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. AstraZeneca (IPR2015-01340).

Read More

Topics: Petitioners, Patent Owners, BioPharma

Duck Salad: Don’t Let Claim Preambles Get Lost in the Weeds

Posted by Diana Borgas on Jun 12, 2017

Diana Borgas

Duck salad—not the tasty Asian dish, but rather a pesky aquatic weed that grows among rice crops—is the subject of the patent challenged in the recent IPR Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. v. Gowan Company, LLC (IPR2016-00076). The Board’s final written decision illustrates a point that should not be overlooked: the broadest reasonable interpretation, which the Board applies to most claims in IPR, is not the broadest conceivable interpretation. The distinction made all the difference in this case. 

Read More

Topics: BioPharma

To Modify or Not to Modify, That is the Question

Posted by Catherine Guzzo on Jun 7, 2017

Catherine Guzzo

In IPRs regarding the patents to pharmaceutical compounds, patentability often turns on the obviousness of taking a known compound and modifying it based on a known technique. This process is known as lead compound analysis. Argentum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (IPR2016-00204) illustrates that even when the lead compound and the modification technique are known, the basics of patent law cannot be ignored—especially with billions of dollars in sales at stake.

Read More

Topics: BioPharma

Going (Way)back to the Future of Printed Publications

Posted by Janet Tse on Jun 2, 2017

Janet Tse

IPR challenges must rely on prior art “patents or printed publications” as the basis for invalidating US patents. But what if a useful prior art reference is not a typical printed publication such as a scientific literature reference or industry journal report? We explored the subject of what constitutes a prior art printed publication in a recent post; now we’ll take a closer look at this issue as it relates to digital content. Two related IPR decisions, Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (IPR2015-01835, Paper 56 and IPR2015-01836, Paper 58), demonstrate that it can sometimes be challenging to prove that a reference qualifies as a printed publication … leaving the petitioner wishing they could hop in the DeLorean to go back and change the prior art.

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, BioPharma, Printed Publications

Tough to Stomach: Differences in Kind and Differences in Degree

Posted by Jessica von Reyn on May 31, 2017

Jessica von Reyn

In IPRs, secondary considerations such as unexpected results can play a determinative role in evaluating obviousness, particularly when there is a clear nexus with the claimed invention. In general, ‘differences in degree’ of a known and expected property are not as persuasive in rebutting obviousness as ‘differences in kind’ (for example, a new property dissimilar to the known property). Such was the case in Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. Pozen, Inc. (IPR2015-01718), in a decision that may leave some feeling queasy. 

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, BioPharma

In IPRs, Section 112 Can Play a Critical Role—Even Late in the Game

Posted by Joseph Bowler on May 1, 2017

Joseph Bowler

As we’ve written before, notwithstanding statutory limits restricting IPR challenges to novelty and obviousness, Section 112 challenges are possible in an IPR. In several proceedings, petitioners have asserted references that have required the Board to determine whether an earlier filing supports the challenged patent’s claims. The Board generally has addressed these issues at the institution stage. However, a recent decision involving Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs demonstrates the Section 112 analysis may not be fully resolved until the trial stage, where it can play a determinative role.

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, BioPharma

Magnitude of Comparative Results: What’s Considered Unexpected?

Posted by Jean Ge on Apr 24, 2017

Jean Ge

The discovery of an optimum value of a “result-effective variable” in a known process is ordinarily considered within the skill of the art and obvious. But, if a patent owner shows that optimizing the variable resulted in benefits with a magnitude unexpected by one skilled in the art, the optimized variable may be found nonobvious, as in Coalition For Affordable Drugs v. Biogen Idec Inc. (IPR2015-01993).

Read More

Topics: Kyle Bass, BioPharma

Sweating Bullets Over the Patentability of Ranges

Posted by Cristin Berkey on Apr 18, 2017

Cristin Berkey

If a patent claim recites a range of 2-6 units, and a prior art reference recites a range of up to 4 units, do those two ranges overlap such that the patent claim is not novel? If so, how important are the ranges when it comes to establishing the novelty of the claim, and whose job is it to make that argument? These questions of overlapping ranges arose in Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc. (IPR2015-01593). In this IPR decision, the PTAB affirmed that when a reference discloses an overlapping range with the challenged patent’s claims, the patent holder has the burden of showing the criticality of the claimed range to establish novelty.

Read More

Topics: BioPharma

Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Blog

Here, the Post-Grant Proceedings Group
at Wolf Greenfield keeps you up to date
on the latest decisions and best practices, and what they mean for you. Learn more about the group and its members.

New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action

Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts

Follow Us

This blog is intended to promote thought and debate on developing areas of the law. The opinions, commentary and characterizations of cases provided on this blog are not legal advice and do not represent the opinions of Wolf Greenfield or its clients.