OCIPLA OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
Oct 01

Oral Inhalation of Influenza Drug Ruled Obvious In View Of Nasal Inhalation

  • October 1, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary

In In Re: Constantin Efthymiopoulos, Appeal No. 2016-1003, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as obvious.

Applicant applied for a patent directed to methods of treating influenza by administering the drug zanamivir through oral inhalation. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of the prior art and Applicant appealed to the Board.  The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection, finding that the prior art’s disclosure of administering zanamivir through “inhalation” encompassed both oral inhalation and nasal inhalation, therefore rendering the claims obvious.  Applicant appealed to the Federal Circuit.

On appeal, Applicant argued that a skilled artisan would not have expected oral inhalation of zanamivir to be effective because oral inhalation delivers drugs to the lower respiratory tract and influenza affects the upper respiratory tract.  Applicant also argued that the Board erred by failing to consider Applicant’s unexpected clinical results which showed that oral inhalation reduced influenza rates relative to intranasal inhalation.  The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed the Board’s finding of obviousness. Specifically, the Federal Circuit explained that although influenza primarily affects the upper respiratory tract, certain strains were known to attack the lower respiratory track and would therefore have provided a skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.  The court also noted that Applicant’s clinical study comparing oral inhalation to intranasal inhalation was not statistically significant.  Judge Newman dissented from the majority on the basis that the prior art disclosure of “inhalation” without more was insufficient to provide a skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Federal Circuit Summaries
  • District Court and PTAB Happenings
  • Internet Sightings
  • Federal Circuit Summaries
  • District Court & PTAB Happenings

Archives

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

Categories

  • Amicus Briefs
  • Employment
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • News
  • Patent
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized


Serving the Orange County Intellectual Property law community since 1983.

Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association
P.O. Box 7632
Newport Beach, CA 92658

About
Membership
Bylaws
Contact

© 2021 OCIPLA | All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web