June 7, 2018
Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Kara Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In UCB Inc., v. Accord Healthcare Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that UCB’s patent on the anti-epileptic drug lacosamide was not rendered obvious by prior art.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that that the patent was distinct from the prior art. The prior art analysis revealed no teachings that render the particular species of combinations claimed obvious, even when the prior art disclosed a broad genus covering the claimed compound generally. The Federal Circuit rejected Appellants’ argument that the presumption of an enabled genus of compounds precludes the finding that there was no reasonable expectation of success of creating a species falling within that genus, stating that such preclusion would create a chilling effect in the chemical arts that would invalidate a compound based on broad genus claims.
The Federal Circuit additionally rejected that the enantiomer lacosamide’s structure had necessarily been revealed by a prior art source that disclosed the chemical structure of the corresponding racemate. Although prior art disclosed the chemical structure of the racemate, it did not disclose its separation into individual enantiomers or data on the separate enantiomers themselves, which the Court found to be patentably distinct.
*Leon Lin is a Summer Associate at Finnegan
Copyright © 2018 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
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
SCOTUS: Justices Reject Three-Year Limit on Damages for Copyright Infringement
May 10, 2024
IP Updates
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
Prosecution First Blog
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 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.