January 13, 2019
Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., No. 18-2361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that Persion Pharmaceutical’s asserted claims were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The two asserted patents in this case are Orange Book listed in connection with the drug product Zohydro ER. The patent claims in this case cover not only the specific Zohydro ER formulation but also methods of using any extended-release formulation with hydrocodone as the only active ingredient to treat pain in patients with compromised liver functionality.
In March 2016, Persion sued Alvogen after Alvogen filed an ANDA seeking approval for a generic version of Zohydro ER. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that the asserted claims in this case were invalid as obvious under § 103. Specifically, the district court found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer a particular prior art hydrocodone formulation to patients with compromised liver function. Furthermore, the court found that the pharmacokinetic limitations in this case were “inherent in any obviousness combination” because the recited parameters in these patents were “necessarily present” in the particular prior art references identified by Alvogen. The district court also found the asserted claims in this case invalid under § 112 for inadequate written description support.
On appeal, Persion contended that the district court improperly relied on inherency because no singular piece of prior art taught administering a hydrocodone-only formulation to patients with compromised liver functionality. The Court disagreed, explaining that in this case “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation at issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.” Thus, the Court found that the district court in this case did not err in relying on inherency because the combination of these particular prior art elements necessarily resulted in a formulation in this case that exhibited the claimed pharmacokinetic parameters.
Persion further argued that the district court erred in relying on pharmacokinetic data from formulations and patient groups not covered by the asserted claims. The Court once again disagreed, explaining that the toxicity of the additional drugs in this case would have motivated a skilled artisan to develop a hydrocodone-only formulation that would be safer and less toxic than the combination formulations disclosed in the particular prior art cited by Alvogen.
The Federal Circuit rejected Persion’s remaining arguments and affirmed the district court’s finding that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Having found that the asserted claims were all invalid for obviousness in this case, the Federal Circuit did not comment on the district court’s decision regarding lack of written description support.
Copyright © 2020 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.