Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

 

CASE OF THE WEEK

Natural Alternatives Int’l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019)

In an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, the Federal Circuit reversed, issuing an opinion that clarifies when a medical treatment may be patent eligible notwithstanding that it implicates natural phenomena.

The patents at issues all relate to dietary supplements containing beta-alanine, an amino acid found in nature. In general, the claims relate to the use of beta-alanine in a dietary supplement to “increas[e] the anaerobic working capacity of muscle and other tissue.” Three categories of claims were at issue—method claims, product claims, and manufacturing claims. Creative Compounds moved for judgment on the pleadings that the claims were all ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court accepted the patentee’s proposed claim constructions and granted the motion.

Read More
 

ALSO THIS WEEK

Forest Labs, LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2017-2369, et al. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2019)

In an appeal from a district court judgment that patent claims directed to a pharmaceutical that was to be dissolved under the tongue or in the cheek were obvious, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court found that there was no motivation to combine the art to arrive at the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit reversed for the district court to address a particular motivation to combine argument raised by defendants. The analysis concerning a second claimed motivation to combine, however, was affirmed.

The Court also held that it was appropriate for the district court to treat the invention “as providing a solution to an unrecognized problem in the art.” The Court noted that it has “recognized that where a problem was not known in the art, the solution to that problem may not be obvious, because ordinary artisans would not have thought to try at all because they would not have recognized the problem.” Because there was no evidence in the art of the problem, it was proper for the district court to treat the invention in part as identification of the problem.

The Court also addressed various objective indicia factors, and affirmed a finding that the claims were not invalid for a lack of written description. The Court also remanded for further consideration of infringement based on a revised claim construction.

The opinion can be found here.

Written by: Scott D. Eads and Nika Aldrich, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt