Generics Successful at Invalidating Novartis Gilenya Patent
April 12, 2017Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch
Novartis v. Torrent Pharma, Apotex, and Mylan (Fed. Cir. 2017)
At the conclusion of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) Trial, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) found all claims of Novartis U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 invalid as obvious. The PTAB had allowed Novartis to include substitute claims as well, but found those also unpatentable as obvious. On appeal here, the Federal Circuit affirms.
The ‘283 patent covers a solid combination of a sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist (fingolimod) and a sugar alcohol (mannitol). The drug – sold under the trade name Gilenya – is used to treat multiple sclerosis. This is the first oral disease modifying MS drug approved by the FDA and is a big drug with billions in sales each year.
The particular ingredients were already known in the art, and the active ingredient – fingolimod – was already known as useful for treating autoimmune diseases such as MS. However, none of the references brought-together the entire combination in a “solid pharmaceutical composition” as required by the claims. However, the Board found that the combination of references would have led an ordinary skilled artisan to the invention claimed here.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence – a liberal and forgiving standard that only requires “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo on appeal. In patent law, the ultimate question of obviousness is deemed a question of law. However, that ultimate conclusion must be based upon a set of predicate factual conclusions as outlined in Graham v. John Deere.
Perhaps of most relevance for many obviousness cases – the existence of a motivation-to-combine references is deemed a question of fact and thus deference is given to the PTO’s conclusion. Here, the court noted that the board considered the negative properties of using mannitol (teaching-away), but was not convinced, and sufficient evidence supported the Board’s decision. The patentee also focused on the fact that the Board’s written decision did not expressly consider all of the patentee’s teaching-away arguments. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that argument – holding that “there is no requirement that the Board expressly discuss each and every negative and positive piece of evidence lurking in the record to evaluate a cursory argument.” On this point, the court recognized the tension with Medichem‘s holding that the disadvantages of a reference must be considered, but held that Medichem does not create a bright-line rule requiring express discussion of all disadvantages. Rather, the Board is “not require[d] . . . to address every argument raised by a party or explain every possible reason supporting its conclusion.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
April 12, 2017Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch
Novartis v. Torrent Pharma, Apotex, and Mylan (Fed. Cir. 2017)
At the conclusion of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) Trial, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) found all claims of Novartis U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 invalid as obvious. The PTAB had allowed Novartis to include substitute claims as well, but found those also unpatentable as obvious. On appeal here, the Federal Circuit affirms.
The ‘283 patent covers a solid combination of a sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist (fingolimod) and a sugar alcohol (mannitol). The drug – sold under the trade name Gilenya – is used to treat multiple sclerosis. This is the first oral disease modifying MS drug approved by the FDA and is a big drug with billions in sales each year.
The particular ingredients were already known in the art, and the active ingredient – fingolimod – was already known as useful for treating autoimmune diseases such as MS. However, none of the references brought-together the entire combination in a “solid pharmaceutical composition” as required by the claims. However, the Board found that the combination of references would have led an ordinary skilled artisan to the invention claimed here.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence – a liberal and forgiving standard that only requires “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo on appeal. In patent law, the ultimate question of obviousness is deemed a question of law. However, that ultimate conclusion must be based upon a set of predicate factual conclusions as outlined in Graham v. John Deere.
Perhaps of most relevance for many obviousness cases – the existence of a motivation-to-combine references is deemed a question of fact and thus deference is given to the PTO’s conclusion. Here, the court noted that the board considered the negative properties of using mannitol (teaching-away), but was not convinced, and sufficient evidence supported the Board’s decision. The patentee also focused on the fact that the Board’s written decision did not expressly consider all of the patentee’s teaching-away arguments. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected that argument – holding that “there is no requirement that the Board expressly discuss each and every negative and positive piece of evidence lurking in the record to evaluate a cursory argument.” On this point, the court recognized the tension with Medichem‘s holding that the disadvantages of a reference must be considered, but held that Medichem does not create a bright-line rule requiring express discussion of all disadvantages. Rather, the Board is “not require[d] . . . to address every argument raised by a party or explain every possible reason supporting its conclusion.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016).