- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
March 26, 2024Ronald Schutz, Brendan Johnson Named to Forbes Top 200 Lawyers in the United States
-
March 21, 2024Robins Kaplan Firm Members Appointed to Law360 Editorial Boards
-
March 20, 2024Brandon Vaughn Inducted into The International Society of Barristers
-
April 3, 2024PowerCon 2024 Energy and Power Conference
-
April 5, 2024Mass Torts Made Perfect
-
April 17, 2024American Antitrust Institute Virtual CLE Lunch & Learn
-
March 22, 2024‘In re Cellect’:
-
March 14, 2024How Many Cases Have You Tried to a Verdict?
-
March 2024Do We Have to Share That Information? Attorney-Client Privilege in the Multi-Entity Context
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Failure to demonstrate that one of skill would have a reasonable expectation of success for a proposed combination dooms an obviousness challenge.
Summer 2015
Case Name: Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Newman, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal from D.N.J., Cooper, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Azasite® (azithromycin); U.S. Patents Nos. 6,861,411 ("the '411 patent"), 6,239,113 ("the '113 patent"), 6,569,443 ("the '443 patent"), and 7,056,893 ("the '893 patent")
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Sandoz appealed a finding that it had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patents-in-suit were obvious. The patents-in-suit covered the use of azithromycin in a topical administration for treating eye infections. Sandoz argued that the district erred in framing the obviousness question too broadly such that it would not be possible to show that one of skill would have been able to solve the problem. Insite asserted that the district court properly defined the problem broadly as nothing in the patent limited the problem narrowly as suggested by Sandoz. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on all accounts.
Why Insite Prevailed: Sandoz argued that that one of skill would have been motivated to combine references disclosing erythromycin and topical administration to arrive at the claimed inventions. Insite countered that azithromycin was thought to be insoluble, had a limited range of effectiveness, and was not included in the list of potential options identified in the art relied upon by Sandoz. Sandoz further argued that the district court erred in precluding it from introducing a foreign file history related to one of the patents-in-suit. Insite argued that the district court properly excluded this late-offered evidence as Sandoz did not identify it as an exhibit until after the pre-trial conference and briefing concerning motions in limine had been completed.
The Federal Circuit first held that the district court properly framed the problem to be solved by the patents-in-suit broadly as failing to identify the problem broadly could import hindsight. Nevertheless, Sandoz was not foreclosed from demonstrating obviousness with its proposed combinations under the broader interpretation. Rather, it failed to bring forth clear and convincing evidence. The references relied on by Sandoz did not identify azithromycin as an option for topical administration. Also, it was believed at the time of invention that azithromycin was insoluble, making topical administration ineffective. In addition, expert testimony demonstrated that azithromycin had a limited effective range as compared to other antibiotics that could be administered topically.
Concerning the issue of the admission of the foreign file history, the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because there was ample prejudice to Insite, including having to prepare for and explain at such late stage in the litigation the difference in US versus foreign patent prosecution and laws. Moreover, the relevance of the statements in the foreign file history was questionable at best.
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.