Posts Tagged ‘obviousness’
In Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Ratiopharm Inc. (2010 FC 230), the Federal Court (“FC”) denied Sanofi-Aventis Canada’s (Sanofi) application to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) to Ratiopharm Inc. pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“PMNOC Regulations“). The FC held Sanofi’s Canadian Patent No. 2,177,772 was invalid for overbreadth, lack of utility and in any case was not infringed by the use of Ratiopharm’s proposed composition.
Ratiopharm’s NOC application was for irbesartan, a drug for treatment of cardiovascular ailments such as hypertension and heart failure. Canadian Patents 2,177,772 (“’772 patent”) and 2,057,913 had been listed by Sanofi on the patent register in respect of irbesartan pursuant to section 4 of the PMNOC Regulations. Ratiopharm accepted that no NOC would issue prior to expiry of the ’913 patent, so only the ’772 patent remained for consideration. The ’772 patent claims pharmaceutical compositions containing irbesartan, preferably in the form of tablets with a high relative amount of the active ingredient that allowed for a rapid dissolution and release. Continue Reading
In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the District Court’s claim construction but vacated the jury’s verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,955, a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer. The jury found willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 12, and 13, and that independent claims 1 and 12 were not invalid as obvious. However, the jury also found that dependent claims 2, 7, and 13 were obvious. Because the District Court did not grant a new trial based on the irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts the CAFC vacated the verdict and remanded. Continue Reading
In Source Search Technologies v. LendingTree, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated the United States District Court of New Jersey’s grant of summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,758,328 (“the ’328 patent”), a system for matching buyers and vendors over a network like the internet, was infringed but invalid. The CAFC affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the findings that the claims were not indefinite and that LendingTree’s website offered “goods and services” as contemplated by the ’328 patent but remanded the case for further fact finding on the infringement and validity issues. Continue Reading
In Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a jury verdict of invalidity even though the district court had given erroneous jury instructions where the error was harmless because the claims were obvious. Therasense and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) claimed that Becton, Dickinson & Company and Nova Biomedical Corp. (BD/Nova) infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,628,890 (the ’890 patent), which claimed electrochemical sensors for measuring glucose levels in blood. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
