September 4, 2019
Authored and Edited by Nicholas J. Doyle; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., No. 2018-1221 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2019), the Court addressed whether a particular claimed dissolution profile had the requisite written description support when the specification described dissolution data obtained using the USP Apparatus 1 Basket Method, whereas the specifically claimed dissolution profile was obtained using the USP Apparatus Paddle 2 Method.
In this Hatch-Waxman litigation, the proposed generic manufacturer argued that a particular asserted claim from one of the Orange Book listed patents lacked written description support because (i) the claim recited a specific dissolution profile that was collected using the USP Apparatus 2 Paddle Method, but (ii) the specification disclosed several tables of dissolution profile data collected using the USP Apparatus 1 Basket Method. The district court found credible the plaintiff’s expert’s statement that the claimed dissolution profile and the dissolution profile data in the specification in this particular case were “substantially equivalent." And in light of that substantial equivalence, the district court held the specification provided adequate written support.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination. It found no error to overturn the court’s reliance on the plaintiff’s expert testimony. Moreover, the Court stated that because the written description question in this particular case related to resultant dissolution parameters rather than an operative claim step, using substantial equivalence to show possession was acceptable.
Chief Judge Prost dissented, believing that the claim’s reliance on the USP Apparatus 2 Paddle Method was limiting; the Court’s precedent in Judge Prost’s view did not suggest “substantially equivalent” disclosure could provide written description support; and the district court erred in finding the specification included disclosure “substantially equivalent” to the specific claimed dissolution profile.
Copyright © 2019 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.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.