May 16, 2023
Authored and Edited by Aïda Liman-Tinguiri; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 21-1981 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding all of the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 unpatentable as obvious.
Mylan filed an inter partes review petition alleging that the claims of the ’614 patent were invalid as obvious over three prior art references--Burren, Venezia, and de Gennes. In response, Sanofi argued, inter alia, that de Gennes is not analogous art to the ’614 patent. The Board found that de Gennes was “reasonably pertinent” to a problem faced by the ’614 patent’s inventor and therefore constituted analogous art in this case.
The Federal Circuit found that Mylan failed to establish that de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent and that the Board’s contrary finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court explained that a reference constitutes analogous art if either (1) the reference is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed” or (2) “the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even if it is from a different field of endeavor. The Court further explained that, in determining whether a reference is analogous, the reference must be compared to the challenged patent. Here, Mylan argued that de Gennes was analogous to Burren, but Mylan failed to explain how de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent and thus failed to carry its burden to establish obviousness based on de Gennes. Because the Board found that Burren and Venezia alone did not render the challenged claims unpatentable, the Federal Circuit reversed.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.