Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
By Tony Dutra
Sept. 8 — OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma L.P. and another oxycodone patent holder filed separate petitions for U.S. Supreme Court review Sept. 1, hoping to overturn invalidity rulings in federal court.
Purdue is defending as nonobvious its three patents on a less toxic formulation known as low-ABUK oxycodone ( Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, U.S., No. 16-289, review sought 9/1/16 ). Grünenthal GmbH contends that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit misapplied standards for determining a lack of invention novelty when it invalidated its patent on making OxyContin resistant to abuse ( Grunenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., U.S., No. 16-296, review sought 9/1/16 ). Purdue licenses Grünenthal's patent.Source Material:
Case below: 811 F.3d 1345
The high court is Purdue's last hope to stall certain generic versions planned by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Epic Pharma LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The petitions challenge different portions of the same Federal Circuit decision. Purdue Pharma LP v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (21 PTD, 2/2/16).
Purdue's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,674,799 , 7,674,800 and 7,683,072 claim an improved formulation with reduced 14-hydroxycodeinone—an alpha, beta unsaturated ketone (ABUK) determined by the Food and Drug Administration to be toxic to human DNA. According to Purdue's petition, scientists had tried but failed to achieve the reduction until Purdue and Rhodes Technologies discovered an agent that was reintroducing 14-hydroxycodeinone late in the manufacturing process.
Since a Supreme Court decision in 1923, an invention merits a patent if the inventor discovers the source of a recognized problem and applies the remedy, Purdue said, citing Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923). But the Federal Circuit ruled that Eibel Process doesn't apply when the patent claims the end product, rather than the method of solving the problem, Purdue claims.
The court applied “parochial limitations” and failed to conduct a “holistic inquiry into nonobviousness,” according to the petition.
Grünenthal's U.S. Patent No. 8,114,383 covers abuse-resistant OxyContin, using “thermoforming” technology that makes the pills so hard it prevents crushing them and injecting the powder to get an opioid high. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent was anticipated by an earlier “McGinity” patent.
According to the petition, McGinity's patent specification didn't describe at least two elements of the invention claimed in the '383 patent—use with opioids and a high breaking strength. The court said, though, that McGinity's references to “a broader group of analgesics” was directly related, and the required hardness is an inherited quality of thermoforming.
The Federal Circuit's ruling on the former is more closely related to obviousness analysis, Grünenthal said. And “inherent anticipation” can't apply when the prior art reference didn't even mention opioids, the products inheriting the quality, it said.
Gregory A. Castanias of Jones Day, Washington, filed Purdue's petition. Charles E. Lipsey of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Reston, Va., filed Grünenthal's petition. Responses are due Oct. 6 and 7, respectively.
Before the Federal Circuit, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, Philadelphia, represented Amneal; Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, represented Mylan; and Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman P.A., Minneapolis, represented Teva.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Dutra in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at email@example.com
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)