About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Could Creating a U.S. "Utility Model" Patent Fulfill the "Need" for Patent Law Reform? | Main | Celesq® Supreme Court IP Roundup »

May 22, 2007

Comments

If you have a patent on a particular pharmaceutrical salt, formulation, or enantiomer, this case should make you very nervous.

"If you have a patent on a particular pharmaceutrical salt, formulation, or enantiomer, this case should make you very nervous."

Of course, one should have been nervous about such narrow patents that are grounded solely in the alleged "unpredictability" of the chemical arts long before this decision.

The likelihood of such patents crashing in litigation has always been high, i.e., one skilled in the art of litigating would "reasonably expect" them to be found invalid.

Dear Neener:

"Alleged?" Not so - it is the nature of biology and chemistry to be unpredictable compared with mechanical and electrical arts. It is no coincidence that KSR was an electromechanical case, because the type of "common sense" expectation occurs in these arts. If we ignore the fact that making salts etc. can be (not has to be) unexpected we lose the advantages of further development of new formulations of old drugs.

And, if you are worried about the types of activities characterized by Nexium, or (fill in the blank)-SR type drugs, remember that people used Prilosec for years, and when it went off patent there was the Schwarz Pharma generic and then the OTC, so no one was forced to take Nexium. The Pfizer case is an anomaly since the District Court found non-obviousness. Provided there is a patentable advantage to a new formulation it should be patentable, unless (as the CAFC found in Apotex), the resulting salt worked precisely as it was expected to.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31