• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

New evidence in an inter part review possible – and even to be expected

18. June 2018

Evidence can be introduced during the IPR process – and not only if the patent holder has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the PTAB against a patent claim for a drug against fungal infections.

Anacor Pharmaceuticals in an Inter Partes Review

nail infectionThe focus of the dispute was Anacor Pharmaceuticals and its claimed patent No. 7,582,621 against nail infections caused by fungal infections (Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 2187768). The patent claimed by Anacor related to the use of 1,3-dihydro-5-fluor-1-hydroxy-2, 1-benzoxaborol, also known as tavaborol. This is listed in the Orange Book as KERYDIN® (tavaborol) – a topical antifungal treatment of nail onychomycosis. The controversial’621 patent claims methods for the treatment of infection with tavaborol, another’657 patent claims pharmaceutical formulations of tavaborol.

The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) annulled the’621 patent claims for the combination of the Austin and Brehove patent publications and the combination of Austin and Freeman. Anacor had combined the references Austin and Brehove and argued that an average expert would not have combined the references because they concern structurally different links. However, the Federal Circuit made it clear that Austin revealed that tavaborol is a known fungicide with particular efficacy against C. albicans and that molecular weight is the most important factor in predicting whether a molecule will penetrate the nail plate. There are structural differences between the dioxaborinanes of Brehove and the benzoxaborols of Austin, but their structural similarities and similar fungicidal effects are decisive. Any expert could rightly expect that the functional activity against dermatophytes and also Candida Albicans (the causers of nail infections) would be confirmed in the combination of Austin and Brehove.

The second aspect in this case: the Inter Partes Review

In the appeal, Anacor argued that the Board had violated the due process and procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to sufficiently inform Anacor about a new theory of obviousness and new evidence not contained in the petition and to give it an opportunity to comment.

The Federal Court of Justice found that there was expressly no prohibition at all against the introduction of new evidence during an inter part review. Anacor had not been denied its procedural rights since the final written decision was based on the same combination of primary references and the same set of conclusions proposed in the petition.

A petitioner in an Inter Partes Review may submit new evidence not included in his petition if:

1) the evidence is a reply to the evidence provided by the patent proprietor

2) or the evidence documents the knowledge that an average expert would bring to reading the state of the art identified as obvious.

Since 2012 – with the revision of the American Patent Act by the America Invents Act (AIA) – a special procedure called the Inter Partes Review has been available for filing a patent application with the US Patent Office. This makes it possible to challenge a granted patent not only with an elaborate nullity action before a court, but with a considerably less elaborate administrative procedure before the patent office. A special feature of this procedure is that the patent office only opens the procedure if the justification of the application indicates a reasonable likelihood of success. The decision of acceptance of the proceedings by the Patent Office is subject to U. S. Patent Law final and not subject to appeal.

Conclusion:

In some cases, an applicant can benefit from the introduction of new evidence by responding to the argument of non-obviousness of a patent holder. Additional evidence of the prior art at the time of the invention may be useful to disprove arguments of the patent proprietor as to knowledge of the prior art. In any case, the introduction of new evidence in the course of an inter part review is not only permissible, but has even to be expected.

Patent protection – a topic for you too?

Our law firm has many years of expertise, also in the pharmaceutical and chemical sector. Request a non-binding callback today:

 

 

 

Sources:

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 2187768

Picture:

181381 / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Patent Law Tag iconAnacor,  Anacor Pharmaceuticials,  inter partes review,  new evidence,  Patent,  patent protection,  PTAB,  U. S. Board of Appeals,  U.S.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

7. March 2022
BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.