Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Claim Construction and Obviousness Conclusion in Eli Lilly’s IPR against LA BioMed

Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP

The Federal Circuit held that a rat study in a provisional application and a conversion method in an uncited reference did not support the claimed human dosage form in Los Angeles Biomed. Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 16-1518 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 2017).  The Federal Circuit further held that claims directed to an underlying condition should not be construed broadly to treat symptoms of that condition.

Eli Lilly requested inter partes review of a patent owned by Los Angeles Biomedical (“LA BioMed”).  LA BioMed argued that the references at issue were not prior art under the statute (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) alleged by Eli Lilly because they published shortly before a provisional application to which the patent claimed priority.  LA BioMed argued that the patent’s dosage limitation “up to 1.5 mg/kg/day” was supported by a rat study in its provisional application because one skilled in the art would have been able to calculate the corresponding human dosage using a conversion method described in a journal article.   

The PTAB rejected LA BioMed’s priority claim because one skilled in the art would have had to investigate the prior art and make various assumptions.  The PTAB also construed the claims broadly to apply to treatment of a symptom that often, but not always, accompanies the claimed condition.  Based on the broad claim construction, the PTAB held that the claims were obvious over the cited references. 

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision on priority because “proof of priority requires written description disclosure in the parent application, not simply information and inferences drawn from uncited references.”  However, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were directed toward a specific condition, not a symptom of the condition.  The Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTAB’s claim construction would make the claims apply to the treatment of the symptom, even if it was caused by an entirely different condition.  Based on the correct claim construction, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s findings of obviousness and remanded for additional factual findings.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens
Contact
more
less

Knobbe Martens on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.