IMPAX LABORATORIES INC. v. LANNETT HOLDINGS INC.
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Federal Circuit Summary
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A passing reference in the prior art to a formulation containing the claimed active ingredient and the claimed administration route may not be sufficient to invalidate a claim.
Astrazeneca AB, Astrazeneca UK Limited, and their exclusive licensee Impax Laboratories Inc. (together, “Astrazeneca”) sued Lannett Holdings Inc. (“Lannett”) for patent infringement based on Lannett’s ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of Zomig® Nasal Spray. The asserted claims addressed a zolmitriptan formulation capable of nasal administration. Appellant argued the asserted claims were invalid as obvious over, inter alia, a reference disclosing an oromucosal formulation that indicates the formulation could also be administered intranasally and may use zolmitriptan as the active ingredient. Despite this disclosure, the district court found after a bench trial that the prior art taught away from formulating zolmitriptan for intranasal administration because of the prior art’s teaching that the active metabolite of zolmitriptan was more effective than zolmitriptan itself, while a nasal spray would require zolmitriptan itself to be effective. As a result, the district court found that a person skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making a nasal formulation of zolmitriptan.
The Federal Circuit found that the case was “close.” But applying the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s factual findings, and thus affirmed its judgment of non-obviousness based on those findings. The Federal Circuit noted that it was “especially persuaded” by the testimony supporting Astrazeneca’s teaching-away argument from one of Astrazeneca’s experts, whom the district court found to be more credible than Lannett’s experts.
This case is: IMPAX LABORATORIES INC. v. LANNETT HOLDINGS INC.
Edited by: Paul Stewart
Written by: Sabrina Wang and Christie Matthaei
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…