November 7, 2017
Authored and Edited by James M. Eaton, Ph.D.; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 2016-2169 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that certain claims of Bayer’s patent covering Staxyn would not have been obvious because the district court failed to consider all evidence of record, and erred in finding a possible preference sufficient to establish teaching away.
After Watson filed an abbreviated new drug application for a generic version of Bayer’s Staxyn product, Bayer sued Watson for patent infringement. After a bench trial, the district court found claims 9 and 11 of Bayer's U.S. Patent No. 8,613,950 not invalid as obvious. In particular, the court found the testimony of Bayer’s expert more credible, and found that the prior art taught away from the claimed formulation.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. The Federal Circuit panel noted that even though “it is well within the district court’s discretion to credit one expert’s competing testimony over another,” the panel held that the district court clearly erred in this case by ignoring key references and the “wealth of evidence” left unchallenged by Bayer’s expert. The Federal Circuit also held that the district court clearly erred in this particular case in focusing on the commercial availability of similar products to Staxyn, while failing to address relevant prior art to the ’950 patent. And the Court found that the district court erred in focusing on whether a skilled artisan might have preferred a delayed release formulation of this particular drug over an immediate release formulation of this drug, and that such a focus could not in this case establish teaching away. The Court concluded Bayer’s objective evidence of nonobviousness in this case could not overcome the competing evidence of obviousness.
Copyright © 2017 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.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Articles
Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions
March/April 2024
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 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.