Maryland federal judge shut down Par Pharmaceutical Inc's bid to keep its formula for a drug that combats anorexia and extreme weight loss in patients with Aids. The court found that the company's invention was obvious in light of previous drug developments. This also proves that court can declare something to be invalid based on obviousness.
The court ruled that anyone with knowledge in this would be able to piece together information from the previous science on the subject to arrive at Par's patent conclusion. Par alleged that Taiwan based drug company sought to make its own version of Megace ES. TWi Pharmaceutical argued against it, and the judge agreed claiming that patent by Par was invalid.
Inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general requirement present in most patent laws. In order for the patent to be inventive it has to be non-obvious. Meaning, the invention has to be an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art.
In this case, the court showed that they can rule out the patent even though it was already filed previously. I believe this is a legitimate decision because patents sometimes keep invention from being formed. I also agree that judge made the right call. If the judge believes that anyone with specific knowledge can make the drug, it indeed sounds correct. Just because you invented it first(which was derived from somewhere else), that doesn't mean someone can't think of same thing from different idea.
I'm surprised that the judge was knowledgeable enough in the field (I'm assuming very complicated chemical engineering) to rule that this was something obvious based on two previous patents. Most of these judges don't even have a technical background, let alone the PhD required to understand the intricacies of these patents. Thus, I'm very curious to know whether it's the judges that make the decision that these patents could have been thought of by an ordinary person in the art or whether they recruit expert witnesses in the field to make the decision.
Just as this, judge should be more knowledgeable in the field in order to judge. I believe we discussed in class that Europe assigns judges based on their specialty. I find it a bit interesting that most of the judges there have PHD in the fields.
Perhaps the company should have tried filing the patent on the basis that they are using only part of the technology, and also in a way that the original pharmaceutical company isn't using it. Also, it seems like the product would have commercial success, which is another argument the company can make.
I'm surprised that the judge was knowledgeable enough in the field (I'm assuming very complicated chemical engineering) to rule that this was something obvious based on two previous patents. Most of these judges don't even have a technical background, let alone the PhD required to understand the intricacies of these patents. Thus, I'm very curious to know whether it's the judges that make the decision that these patents could have been thought of by an ordinary person in the art or whether they recruit expert witnesses in the field to make the decision.
ReplyDeleteJust as this, judge should be more knowledgeable in the field in order to judge. I believe we discussed in class that Europe assigns judges based on their specialty. I find it a bit interesting that most of the judges there have PHD in the fields.
DeletePerhaps the company should have tried filing the patent on the basis that they are using only part of the technology, and also in a way that the original pharmaceutical company isn't using it. Also, it seems like the product would have commercial success, which is another argument the company can make.
ReplyDeleteTrue. They can argue for it, but I doubt it would be granted. In any case, they should have argued all possible cases.
Delete