Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
+1 (702) 462-5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com
Twitter
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • PATENT
    • TRADEMARK
    • COPYRIGHT
    • LITIGATION
    • BUSINESS LAW
  • TEAM
  • NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

Blog

Obviousness Analysis – PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC. v. ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.

June 27, 2016adminNewsNo Comments

The ‘770 patent which is owned by Prometheus Laboratories Inc., claims a method of treatment for IBS-D utilizing alosetron. Prometheus also has the ‘800 patent which covers the use of ‘770 patent.

In 2009, Roxane filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with FDA seeking approval of a version of Lotronex, since the ‘770 patent expired. In 2010, reexamined ‘770 patent was relisted in the Orange Book and Roxane submitted a paragraph 4 certification to the FDA.

In 2011, Prometheus sued all the defendants alleging infringement of ‘770 patent. Prometheus alleged that Roxane’s label would encourage doctors to prescribe alosetron in a sense that infringes the claims.

The district court held that “the elements of the ’770 patent were present in the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claims of the ’770 patent are insubstantial . . . [as] some of the prior art is virtually identical to the claimed inventions”. In addition, the district court also held that “the claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in light of the claims of the ’800 patent”. So, the district court did not agree with Prometheus, saying that there is no issue of infringement. Then, Prometheus appealed.

According to the Federal Circuit, obviousness is based on “underlying factual findings, including: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the claims and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unmet needs, failure of others, and unexpected results”. And, also states that a patent would have been obvious if the differnces between the calimed invention and prior art are such certain that a person having ordinary skill in the art will distinguish them. The Federal Circuit held that “even treating the limitations of the ’770 claims as exclusions, we conclude that before October 7, 1997, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to treat those sub-species claimed here”. Prometheus objected.

The Federal Circuit noted that “if the later expiring patent is merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the reference patent, the later expiring patent is invalid”. The court also stated that in this case, it would have been obvious to a person who has ordinary skill in art to read the ‘800 patent and treat patients with IBS-D. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision noting that “the challenged claims of the ’770 patent would have been obvious over the ’800 patent and other prior art”.

admin
Previous Post Subject-Matter Analysis – ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al. v. SEQUENOM, INC., et al. Next Post Inter-Partes Review – CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES V. LEE

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • December 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • December 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014

Every Person Who Walks Through Our Door Is
Important To Us

Request Consultatıon
Our Expertises

º Patent
º Trademark
º Copyright
º Litigation Srv.
º Business Law

USA

1540 West Warm Springs Road
Suite 100
Henderson, NV 89014
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

233 S. Wacker Drive
44th Floor, #57
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

EUROPE

Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Bulvarı,
5387.Cadde Beytepe, 06800,
Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

CHINA

Room C503 5/F, SCE Building No:212, Gaoqi Nanwu Road, Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, China

HOME PAGE

SITE MAP

CONTACT

© 2021 | bayramoglu-legal.com | Designed by ANL Creative