The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 22nd, 2019, 7:19pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Obviousness
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   obviousness decision-Takeda v. Alphapharm
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: obviousness decision-Takeda v. Alphapharm  (Read 1606 times)
pentazole
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 197
obviousness decision-Takeda v. Alphapharm
« on: Jul 2nd, 2007, 11:27am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

An interesting decision regarding obviousness post KSR.
 
Alphapharm challenged Takeda's patent pre KSR saying it was obvious, but lost.
 
They appealed after KSR and still couldn't get a reversal.
 
It's an interesting read, they talk about both KSR and Pfizer v. Apotex (another case that was recently decided).
 
EDIT:  Here's the link:  http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1329.pdf
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2007, 12:03pm by pentazole » IP Logged
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 456
Re: obviousness decision-Takeda v. Alphapharm
« Reply #1 on: Jul 3rd, 2007, 9:11am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The decision is what I expected after KSR.   They went through Graham and ended trying to find some motivation or suggestion.   They didnt find it because there were "negative effects" associated with compound b, among other things.  
 
It does illustrate the importance of prosecution history, however, I am not sure why the court did not give deference to the PH verses the Sodha reference.  In one respect, it was written as "especially important" and Sodha, the compound was evidenced as teaching away.
 
"the court found that any suggestion to select compound b was essentially negated by the disclosure of the Sodha II reference."
 
they state "given the more exhaustive and reliable scientific analysis presented by Sodha II."
 
 
I guess "especially important" really was not qualified and is a generally weak statement, and Sodha II was a scientific publication?
 
Regards,
 
IP Logged
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board