Hypothesis alone Does not Make the Results Obvious

by Dennis Crouch My former bosses Paul Berghoff and Alison Baldwin (at MBHB) won an interesting case today on behalf of Genzyme and its corporate parent Sanofi-Aventis. Genzyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017) Genzyme’s patent No. 7,897,590 is an important part of modern stem-cell practice in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.  The patented process stimulates mobilization of a donor’s bone marrow by administering both a “granulocyte-colony stimulating factor” and also plerixafor (See Claim 19).  The plerixafor drug (sold under the brand name Mozobil) is no longer patented, but the treatment protocol is patented. In the ANDA lawsuit, the generic defendants argued that the asserted claim was obvious.  Following a bench trial (no right to jury trial in ANDA cases), the district court sided with the patentee — finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. On…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply