Main Menu

In an ANDA case, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that the reexamined method claim and product claims were invalid as being obvious over seven prior art references.  In an opinion directed to the details of each of the seven references, the court concluded that obviousness had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and finding that the purported evidence of unexpected results showed merely that the results were the product of routine optimization that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.  Judge Newman dissented on the grounds that the majority gave no deference to the PTO’s review of the restricted claim scope or the unexpected results of that restricted claim scope and merely relied on the same invalidity grounds for the less restricted original claims.

Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd., Case No. 2013-1630 (March 20, 2015); Opinion by: Plager, joined by Moore; Newman, dissenting; Appealed From: District Court for the District of Delaware, Robinson, J. Read the full opinion here.

If you have questions or need more information, please contact info@mckoolsmith.com.

Back to Page