Teva v astrazeneca invalidating a patent with secret prior art

Teva asserted that its patent covered Astra Zeneca's blockbuster drug product, CRESTOR. In the EDPA case, Astra Zeneca moved for summary judgment of patent invalidity under § 102(g)(2). Because Teva had, at most, discovered an inherent property of a prior art composition, its asserted '502 patent claims were invalid. ("Teva") sued several Astra Zeneca companies for alleged infringement of the '502 patent. At the time Teva filed suit, Teva USA was a defendant in a consolidated ANDA case in the U. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent covering the active ingredient of CRESTOR.The United States has a "first to invent" patent system. This principle is embodied, among other places, in section 102(g)(2) of the Patent Code, which states that a person is not entitled to a patent if "before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it." 35 U. An invention is known when the information about it was reasonably accessible to the public on that date.(2) An invention is not new if it was already patented or described in a printed publication, anywhere in the world before the [insert date of invention]. Represented petitioners in inequitable conduct case challenging Federal Circuit ruling that a secret process used to make an existing product is prior art that must be disclosed in later inventor’s application to patent a similar process.

In general, inventions are new when the identical [product or process] has not been made, used, or disclosed before.

These are distinct concepts, each of which has to be satisfied and each of which has its own rules.

Prior disclosure is the first requirement to be satisfied for matter to anticipate an invention.

s.130(7) is also relevant Section 2 is so framed as to have, as nearly as practicable the same effect in the UK as the corresponding provisions of the EPC, ie Articles 54 and 55, PCT and CPC. An invention defined in a claim lacks novelty if the specified combination of features has already been anticipated in a previous disclosure.

In Smith Kline Beecham Plc’s ( Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC 10, the House of Lords held there were two requirements for anticipation: prior disclosure (see 2.03 to 2.09) and enablement see 2.10.

Leave a Reply