1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Patentee Bears the Burden of Establishing Non-Enablement of Allegedly Anticipatory Prior Art Reference

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 | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights