Teva v astrazeneca invalidating a patent with secret prior art Face to face with live dirty webcam chats with hot teens for free
The Federal Circuit held that the patents, which taught use of active ingredient at 0.3% concentration, were invalid as obvious in light of prior art that disclosed preferred range of 0.01%–1% for that ingredient, with same inactive ingredients.
The Federal Circuit affirmed as to one claim of the asserted patents, concluding that the defendants had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was obvious.
Suffolk’s patent application was filed back in 1996, but it turns out that the invention was described in a 1995 Use Net newsgroup post posted by a college student. If a reference is sufficiently disseminated at time of original publication then the ability to later locate the reference is irrelevant.
Under the statute, a patent is invalid if “(a) the invention was … before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.” Courts have repeatedly found that online content fits within the definition of printed publication. Public accessibility looks to the ability of persons who would be interested or skilled in the subject matter to locate the reference using only reasonable diligence.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.
C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates.
For that legal conclusion, the court relied upon a handful of facts: Invalidity affirmed.
The case was discussed in an earlier Patently-O Posting titled Structuring a Privateering Contract (2012).
1) CAFC Blog: Revisiting Therasense, CAFC Finds That An Inventor’s Subjective Belief That Submission of Documents Was Unnecessary May Not be Sufficient to Avoid a Showing Of Intent to Deceive – This post discusses and shares how the CAFC found that the patents were invalid over withheld references, and unenforceable for inequitable conduct.