Working until the end of the year, Federal Circuit addresses a Law School Exam Type Case
December 26, 2006
The Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of Indiana decision that generic drug makers IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Dr. Reddy's Labratories, Ltd. (DRL) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. infringed Eli Lilly and Company's (Lilly) U.S. Patent no. 5,229,382. The '382 Patent claims chemical compound olanzapine and the use of the compound to treat schizophrenia. The infringers attempted to show that the '382 was invalid as either being anticipated, obvious or that in the alternative, that it was used in the public more than 1 year before Lilly filed an application. Both the trial court and the court of appeals determined that the '382 patent was valid and that Lilly had acted appropriately while prosecuting the patent. While the Federal Circuit was addressing each of the above identified areas of concern, they provided the basis for an ideal law school patent prosecution exam question. The Federal Circuit addressed anticipation and the elements necessary for showing anticipation, especially as it applies to chemical compounds. Specifically the Court addressed the issue of how specific a prior art reference has to be to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to truly anticipate a compound. The Federal Circuit also chose to address obviousness again, further leading to the perfect patent exam question. Once again, the Federal Circuit stressed the importance of Graham v. John Deere Co. The Federal Circuit went on to emphasize that the court will not ignore a relevant property of a compound in the obviousness calculus. When claimed properties differ from the prior art, those differences, if unexpected and significant, may lead to decision of nonobviousness. This general rule is applicable even if there is structural similarity between the applicants' chemical and that of the prior art. Finally, in an attempt to distinguish the truly average law student from the exceptional law school student, the Federal Circuit chose to address both public use and inequitable conduct. If I was a current or future law student, I personally would be looking for a fact pattern very similar to this case. To read the full text of the decision click here.
Post has no comments.
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog
  Newer Posts Older Posts  


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.