Patentee Bears the Burden of Establishing Non-Enablement of Allegedly Anticipatory Prior Art Reference
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.07.08
In Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (No. 07-1513; October 3, 2008), the Federal Circuit explains that anticipation requires that a prior art reference enable one of ordinary skill to make the claimed invention without undue experimentation, and that the patentee has the burden of establishing non-enablement of the asserted prior art reference.
Impax brought a declaratory judgment action and alleged, among other things, that claims of a patent owned by defendant Aventis were anticipated by a prior art patent. Aventis' patent claims a method for treating mammals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) using riluzole. Following a remand by the Federal Circuit of an earlier appeal in the case, the district court made specific factual findings related to the question of whether the alleged prior art enables one of ordinary skill to treat ALS with riluzole.
In affirming the district court's ultimate findings of non-enablement and non-anticipation by the prior art reference, the Federal Circuit finds no error in the district court's factual finding and analysis. In particular, the Court holds that the district court properly placed the burden of establishing non-enablement of the prior art patent on the patentee and that the patentee met that burden. The Federal Circuit also cites with approval specific facts found by the district court, including that (1) the alleged prior art patent disclosed a "formula I" that encompassed hundreds or thousands of compounds and disclosed several diseases, but that nothing in the prior art patent would direct one of ordinary skill to recognize that riluzole could be used to treat ALS; (2) while formula I encompassed riluzole, the prior art patent explicitly excluded riluzole from the scope of the invention; (3) the dosage guidelines in the prior art patent were broad, were not specific to any of the hundreds of formula I compounds or to any of the listed diseases, and were tied to the compounds of the invention; and (4) the prior art patent disclosed no working examples.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
