Federal Circuit Notes High Burden of Invoking Inherency for Obviousness

05 December 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

In Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court decision holding the Par claims at issue obvious. The district court decision rested in part on the doctrine of inherency, but Twi did not establish that the property at issue “necessarily must be present” in the product rendered obvious by the prior art. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit emphasizes the “high standard” required to invoke the doctrine of inherency in an obviousness context.

The Patent at Issue

The patent at issue was Par’s U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576, directed to methods of using megestrol:

1. A method of increasing the body mass in a human patient suffering from anorexia, cachexia, or loss of body mass, comprising administering to the human patient a megestrol formulation, wherein:
(a) the megestrol acetate formulation is a dose of about 40 mg to about 800 mg in about a 5 mL dose of an oral suspension;
(b) the megestrol acetate formulation comprises megestrol particles having an effective average particle size of less than about 2000 nm, and at least one surface stabilizer associated with the surface of the megestrol particles; and
(c) the administration is once daily;
wherein after a single administration in a human subject of the formulation there is no substantial difference in the Cmax of megestrol when the formulation is administered to the subject in a fed versus a fasted state, wherein fasted state is defined as the subject having no food within at least the previous 10 hours, and wherein fed state is defined as the subject having a high-calorie meal within approximately 30 minutes of dosing.

(emphasis added)

The District Court Decision

 

The district court determined that the patent was invalid as obvious pursuant to a bench trial. As summarized in the Federal circuit decision, the district court found that “all elements of the claimed invention were disclosed in the prior art,” and that “even though the prior art did not explicitly disclose the food effect differences as claimed, … [t]he claimed pharmacokinetic parameters with respect to a food effect . . . are inherent properties of the obvious nanoparticulate formulation.”

The Federal Circuit Decision

 

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judges Wallach and Hughes.

According to the Federal Circuit decision, “[b]oth Par and TWi appear to agree that essentially all of the substantive limitations in the independent claims are present in the various prior art references identified by the district court. The point of contention is whether the specific food effect limitations are also disclosed in the prior art.” On that point, the Federal Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that “there was no known food effect for megestrol in the prior art,” but disagreed that the doctrine of inherency could be relied upon to establish obviousness.

The Federal Circuit cited familiar language from In re Oelrich (CCPA 1981) for the proposition that “inherency must be limited when applied to obviousness, and is present only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements:

Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.

As stated by the Federal Circuit:

A party must … meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis—the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.

The Federal Circuit noted that the record before it might establish that “it may be true that a reduction in particle size naturally results in some improvement in the food effect,” but “the district court failed to conclude that the reduction in particle size naturally results in ‘no substantial difference’ in the food effect, as recited in claim 1.

The Federal Circuit therefore vacated remanded for the district court to determine “TWi has presented clear and convincing evidence that demonstrates the food effect as claimed is necessarily present in the prior art combination.

(The Federal Circuit was not persuaded by Par’s arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine, lack of expectation of success, teaching away, unexpected results, and long-felt need, and upheld the district court’s findings on those issues.)

Can the Function Be Parsed From the Composition? 

 

In reaching its decision, the Federal Circuit distinguished other cases where it had been admitted or shown that the property at issue was inherent to the claimed composition. But can the properties of a product be parsed from its components? When an applicant distinguishes a claimed composition from the prior art based on a functional property, an examiner may insist that the component(s) responsible for the property be recited in the claims. While such claim language may not always be required to satisfy the enablement and written description requirements, claims that rely primarily on functional language are vulnerable to challenge on those grounds.

On the other hand, I disagree with Kevin Noonan’s thesis that the Par claims raise subject matter eligibility issues under Prometheus. Unlike the Prometheus claims, the Par claims recite the administration of a novel megestrol formulation according to a specific dosing regimen. While non-obviousness of the Par claims was based on the “wherein” clause, that clause recites a specific result of the claimed method, whereas the “wherein” clause in Prometheus informed a relevant audience of the “need” to increase or decrease a subsequent dose.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ