United States: Obviousness Versus Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Prometheus' claims were invalid as obvious, but in so doing it cited its own precedent regarding obviousness-type double patenting. Is the court blurring the line between these doctrines?

The Product At Issue

The product at issue was Roxane's generic version of Prometheus' Lotronex® (alosetron HCl) product, which was approved by the FDA for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). As explained by the Federal Circuit, IBS is a condition defined and diagnosed by its collection of symptoms. These symptoms may contribute to diarrhea-predominant IBS ("IBS-D"), constipation-predominant IBS ("IBS-C"), or some combination. Lotronex® first was launched in 2000, but was removed from the market after being linked with severe side effects. It was re-launched in 2002 with a more restrictive label, i.e., indicated only for women with severe IBS-D who have, inter alia, chronic symptoms generally lasting six months or longer, and not for use in patients with constipation.

In 2009, Roxane filed an ANDA seeking approval of its generic version of Lotronex® which included a paragraph IV certification against the Orange Book listed patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,284,770.

The Patent at Issue

The '770 patent is directed to "[m]edicaments for the treatment of non-constipated female irritable bowel syndrome," and includes claims that correspond to the approved use of Lotronex®. The patent issued in 2001, and Prometheus sought reexamination of the patent in 2009. A reexamination certificate issued on October 19, 2010, with the following claims amended or added during reexamination:

5. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient, while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising:
assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for at least six months; and
administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.

10. The method for treating according to claim 5, further comprising assessing whether said female IBS patient has experienced at least moderate pain prior to administration of alosetron.

13. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient, while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising:
assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for at least six months;
assessing whether said nonconstipated female IBS patient experiences at least moderate baseline pain from IBS; and
administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months and who experiences at least moderate baseline pain from IBS, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.

The District Court Decision

Roxane challenged the validity of the claims as obvious or invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) over a now-expired Prometheus patent—U.S. Patent No. 5,360,800. The '800 patent included claims directed to treating IBS generally, i.e., the claims were directed to a genus of the claims in the '770 patent, which recite methods of treating a subpopulations of IBS patients: those who (1) are women, (2) have IBS-D, (3) have experienced symptoms for at least six months, and (4) have had moderate pain.

Despite Prometheus' evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness with respect to commercial success, long-felt need, and unexpected results associated with the patient subpopulations 24claimed in the '770 patent, the district court found that the claims would have been obvious or, in the alternative, invalid for OTDP, over the '800 patent.

In terms of commercial success, the court held that Prometheus did not prove a nexus with the claims at issue. The court similarly was not persuaded by Prometheus' arguments that the claimed methods satisfied a long-felt need. With regard to unexpected results, the court found them unconvincing in view of various prior art teachings and expert testimony to the effect that the results were not in fact unexpected.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Judge Dyk, and joined by Judges Taranto and Hughes, and affirmed the district court's obviousness determination.

Judge Dyk began the analysis by highlighting the distinction between the genus disclosed and claimed in the '800 patent and the species-type claims at issue in the '770 patent. Judge Dyk emphasized that "[i]t is well-settled that a narrow species can be non-obvious and patent eligible despite a patent on its genus [and an] earlier disclosure of a genus does not necessarily prevent patenting of a species member of the genus." He emphasized that, especially in the personalized medicine space "a rejection likely would not be appropriate where the new patient subset displayed unexpected results."

Yet, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that in this case unexpected results were not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. The Federal Circuit reviewed the prior art and expert testimony and agreed with the district court's conclusion that Prometheus' evidence of improved efficacy in the recited subpopulations were not unexpected. Citing its recent OTDP decision in AbbVie v. Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit noted that "[t]he record contains abundant evidence that there was a limited number of known parameters [involved in the treatment of IBS] and it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as to each parameter."

Here, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art reading the '800 patent to treat female patients with IBS-D who had symptoms for at least six months and who had experienced at least moderate pain. As discussed above, these limitations are directed to a known type of IBS, to treating the gender that predominantly experiences IBS, to treating patients with a characteristic that is always or almost always evaluated in establishing IBS, and to assessing symptoms for a duration of time that was common in diagnosing patients with IBS.

As to commercial success, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's decision that this success was not due to the '770 patent claims, but instead was attributable to Prometheus' marketing efforts, pricing schemes, and sales tactics. That is, the Federal Circuit agreed that Prometheus had not meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence to show a nexus between the claimed methods and commercial success. The Federal Circuit likewise found no clear error in the district court's conclusion regarding long-felt need, because it was the recited drug itself (alosetron), and not the claimed methods, that satisfied any long-felt need.

Obviousness Versus Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

While the district court held the '770 patent claims invalid under alternative theories of obviousness and OTDP, the Federal Circuit decision discusses only obviousness. Indeed, the discussion section of the opinion does not mention double patenting, and the opinion concludes: "We affirm the district court's holding that the challenged claims of the '770 patent would have been obvious over the '800 patent and other prior art."

Yet, the crux of the Federal Circuit's affirmance rests on its OTDP jurisprudence, i.e., its decision in AbbVie. While the use of OTDP case law to support a finding of obviousness may seem trivial given the similarity of the doctrines, other decisions have highlighted important distinctions. For instance, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373 (2003), included a footnote highlighting "distinctions between obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and nonstatutory double patenting," including that the objects of comparison are very different, and that obviousness requires inquiry into a motivation to modify the prior art while OTDP does not. (The footnote also opined that obviousness requires inquiry into objective criteria of non-obviousness while OTDP does not, but the Federal Circuit held in Eli Lilly v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.(Fed. Cir. 2012) that such criteria–including unexpected results–should be considered in an OTDP context.) Parties facing circumstances where such distinctions may impact the outcome should consider reminding the court that obviousness and OTDP are not one and the same.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions