It's an appeal from a district court decision in a paragraph IV case, relating to the drug "bimatoprost," which apparently will make your eyelashes grow. Because it's all about the generic form of a particular drug the district court based its finding of non-obviousness on the failure of the prior art to suggest the drug in question, combined with the unexpected results produced by the drug.
BUT
The claims recite a variable chemical structure that covers many more compounds than the particular drug in question. Quoth the majority:
Given the breadth of
the ’029 patent’s claimed invention, appellants did not
have the exacting burden of showing a reasonable expectation of success in using the narrow class of PGF analogs
with C1-amide groups to treat hair loss, let alone a reasonable expectation of success in using bimatoprost in
particular. Appellants instead had the burden of showing
that any compounds within the broad genus claimed by
the ’029 patent, including those that did not have C1-
amide groups, were obvious at the time of the invention.
No comments:
Post a Comment