Does Prior Art Lose Significance with Time?

In Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2013), the Federal Circuit by Judge Rader, with Judges O’Malley and Reyna, found Patent No. 6,753,013 non-obvious, reversing a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.  Significantly, the opinion implies that prior art loses its significance for obviousness determinations with time. The…

Federal Circuit Clarifies Use of Common Sense to Support the Combination of References to Arrive at Obviousness and the Role of “Secondary” Considerations in the Obviousness Inquiry

The Federal Circuit recently expanded the role of secondary considerations, or objective indicia, of non-obviousness in the obviousness calculus.  In Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., the district court held claims directed to a headset stabilizer invalid as obvious.   No. C09-1714, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40172 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012).  On appeal, the Federal Circuit…

District Court Holds That 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor Protects Post-Filing Activities

A Massachusetts district court has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Amphastar and Teva in a suit over a quality-control method patent for manufacture of the anticoagulant enoxaparin. The two related suits were filed by plaintiff Momenta Pharmaceuticals, the first generic manufacturer of enoxaparin.  Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., No. 11-11681 (D.…