Creative Patent Claiming Strategies in Light of FDA Approval

Lessons From Teva Pharms. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Sanofi v. Watson, and Successful Means-Plus-Function Patents

A live 90-minute premium CLE video webinar with interactive Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

1:00pm-2:30pm EST, 10:00am-11:30am PST

Early Registration Discount Deadline, Friday, February 11, 2022

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE course will guide patent counsel on patent claiming and the virtues of claiming precisely what the FDA approved. The panel will discuss the recent Teva Pharms. v. Corcept Therapeutics decision, the obvious to try requirements, and the lessons from the recent decision. The panel will also highlight a similarly successful claiming strategy employed in Sanofi v. Watson and will explore creative claim strategies that take advantage of 112(f)’s means-plus-function terminology. The panel will offer best practices for patent claiming and tethering the claims to an FDA-approved product.

Description

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Teva Pharms. v. Corcept Therapeutics reminds practitioners of the importance of claiming what was approved by the FDA and also that showing obviousness requires both a motivation to modify/combine the prior art AND a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at the claimed invention. Moreover, that reasonable expectation of success must be tied to the claim limitations, which are optimally tied to an FDA-approved product or method of treatment.

In addition, the case reminds practitioners that an obvious to try argument, for example, by a petitioner in an IPR, may be a difficult one if the changes that are allegedly “obvious to try” are not predictable solutions or if there is not a reasonable expectation of success. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s argument of obviousness may fail.

This case also highlights the importance of claim construction. Corcept’s claims were construed to require safe administration, even though that was not recited in the claims. But the Board and the Federal Circuit focused on what the clinical trials showed and what Corcept claimed. Claim construction was an important underpinning of the conclusion that the success of the claimed invention could not have been reasonably expected.

The case also brings to mind other creative claiming strategies like those in Sanofi v. Watson, 875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as well as using means-plus-function terminology, as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See, e.g,. Ex parte Gleave, Appeal 2012-004973 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014).

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys as they examine patent claiming and the virtues of claiming precisely what the FDA approved. The panel will discuss the recent Teva v. Corcept decision, obvious to try arguments, and the practical lessons from the recent decision. In addition, the panel will highlight a similarly successful claiming strategy employed by Sanofi in Sanofi v. Watson, 875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further, the panel will explore creative claim strategies that take advantage of 112(f)’s means-plus-function terminology, particularly as a way to link an FDA-approved formulation to patent claims describing the approved formulation and literal equivalents thereof. The panel will offer best practices for patent claiming and tethering the claims to an FDA-approved product.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Designing patent claims to read on FDA approved active ingredients, formulations, and methods of treatment
  2. Formulating and defending against obvious-to-try attacks
  3. Court treatment
  4. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • What guidance does the Federal Court's recent decision provide on obvious to try?
  • How do limitations in claim language frame the reasonable expectation of success analysis?
  • What best practices should patent counsel employ to minimize the risk of facing a challenge to the patent application?

Faculty

Burgy, Adriana
Adriana L. Burgy

Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Ms. Burgy focuses on opinion work, client counseling, patent prosecution and management, and litigation in the...  |  Read More

Irving, Thomas
Thomas L. Irving

Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Mr. Irving has 35 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution,...  |  Read More

Murphy, Amanda
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Dr. Murphy focuses her practice on client counseling and patent prosecution for a range of clients. She prepares new...  |  Read More

Klunder, Janice
Janice Klunder
Vice President, Head of Global Intellectual Property
Ipsen Bioscience

Ms. Klunder is Vice President, Head of Global Intellectual Property at Ipsen. She and her team support the R&D,...  |  Read More

Attend on March 8

Early Discount (through 02/11/22)

Cannot Attend March 8?

Early Discount (through 02/11/22)

You may pre-order a recording to listen at your convenience. Recordings are available 48 hours after the webinar. Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

Download