Pharmaceutical Litigation

Requisite Motivation to Select Individual Components of a Combination Drug Product The Court held that Actavis had not shown obviousness of the asserted claims of the '626 and '111 patents, finding, inter alia, that that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated based on th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement 2017-11, Vol.23 (6), p.24-26
Main Authors: Peterman, Chad J, Wexler, Bruce M, Kung, Simon F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Court hearings & proceedings
Inventors
Laboratories
Litigation
Pharmaceutical industry
Trials
Weight control
Witnesses
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Requisite Motivation to Select Individual Components of a Combination Drug Product The Court held that Actavis had not shown obviousness of the asserted claims of the '626 and '111 patents, finding, inter alia, that that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated based on the prior art to "pursue the combination of bupropion and naltrexone for weight loss." [Id. at 19.] [...]the Court found that "the prior art disclosed that naltrexone was not effective for weight loss." The Court observed that Actavis's argument-that it would have been obvious to combine naltrexone and bupropion for weight loss-was "a classic case of hindsight bias," where "[Actavis] begins with the combination [Orexigen] ultimately patented and then seeks to justify that combination by combining prior art references that simply would not guide a person of ordinary skill to choose this combination."
ISSN:1086-914X