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
May 10

Federal Circuit Summaries (2 of 12)

  • May 10, 2022
  • staff
  • Uncategorized

Intrinsic Evidence Trumps Plain and Ordinary Meaning

In Astrazeneca Ab v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 21-1729, the Federal Circuit held that for purposes of claim construction, intrinsic evidence can trump the plain and ordinary meaning of scientific conventions such as significant figures.  

AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kindeva Drug Delivery L.P. (collectively, “Mylan”) for infringement of patents directed to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler that administers a stable formoterol/budesonide pharmaceutical.  The district court construed the term “0.001%” in the limitation “PVP K25 is present at a concentration of 0.001% w/w” according to its “plain and ordinary meaning, that is, expressed with one significant digit” (i.e., encompassing a concentration of PVP K25 in the range of 0.0005% to 0.0014%).  Mylan then stipulated to infringement and the district court entered final judgment of infringement.   

The Federal Circuit held the district court erred in its claim construction and vacated and remanded the infringement holding.  The Federal Circuit stated that while the plain and ordinary meaning was based on scientific convention, the intrinsic evidence (i.e., written description and prosecution history) placed considerable emphasis on formulation stability and thus supported the narrower construction of “‘0.001%’ as [a] precise number, with only minor variations, i.e., 0.00095% to 0.00104%.” For example, the written description showed the inventors understood that a formulation comprising 0.001% w/w PVP K25 is more stable than a formulation with even a slight difference in the concentration (e.g., 0.0005% w/w PVP K25).  Furthermore, over the course of the prosecution history, the patentees narrowed the concentration of PVP K25 to 0.001% w/w from a broader range without using the qualifier “about” in order to “emphasiz[e] to the Examiner that 0.001% w/w PVP K25—not concentrations slightly more or less than 0.001% w/w—was critical to stability of the formulation.”

 Judge Taranto dissented in part, arguing that, “0.001%” should be construed to have its significant figure meaning with one “possible interval-shrinking change” that ultimately would not disturb the previous finding of infringement.

 (Pharmaceuticals, Claim Construction, Invalidity; Prepared by Alexander Zeng)

Limitations in Claim Language Frame Reasonable Expectation of Success Analysis

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal No. 21-1360, the Federal Circuit held that limitations, such as specific drug doses, in claim language can impact the application of the reasonable expectation of success analysis for obviousness.

Teva sought a post-grant review of the claims of Corcept’s patent. The claims were generally directed to a method of treating Cushing’s syndrome that involved a co-administration of drugs. Teva argued that the claims were obvious. The prior art materials disclosed information related to drug-drug interaction. The PTAB found that Teva failed to show that the claims would have been obvious because Teva failed to show that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success for safe co-administration of the drugs. Teva appealed and argued that the PTAB misapplied the law relating to obviousness. Teva argued that the PTAB required precise predictability, rather than a reasonable expectation of success.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision. The Federal Circuit stated that “[t]he reasonable expectation of success analysis must be tied to the scope of the claimed invention.” In the present case, the claim was construed to require safe administration of a specific amount of mifepristone, and thus, the PTAB was required to frame its reasonable-expectation-of-success analysis around that specific dosage.  The Federal Circuit found that Teva had failed to prove that a skilled artisan would have expected co-administration of the claimed dosage of mifepristone with a strong inhibitor to be safe, and that the PTAB had not required precise predictability. 

(Pharmaceuticals; Obviousness; Prepared by Paige Cappelli)

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Federal Circuit Summaries (1 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (2 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (3 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (4 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (5 of 8)

Archives

  • January 2023
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • 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
  • Copyright
  • Education and Training
  • Employment
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • News
  • Non-Obviousness
  • Patent
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Trade secret
  • 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

© 2022 OCIPLA | All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web