By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1973-GMS (D.Del., August 25, 2016) (consolidated), the Court, following a five-day bench trial and having considered the entire record in the case (including but not limited to the parties' post-trial proposed findings of fact and post-trial briefs), directed the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that (1) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are valid; (2) Roxane's proposed products induce infringement of the asserted claims of the '610 patent; and (3) Roxane's proposed products do not contributorily infringe the asserted claims of the '610 patent. Id. at *2.
Among other things, the Court rejected Roxane's argument that the '610 patent claimed a patent ineligible subject matter – namely, a law of nature that it applies in a way that is routine and conventional. Id. at *17. The Court reasoned that, although the '610 patent depends upon the laws of nature, the specific dosage step in the '610 patent was not routine or conventional and provided sufficient inventive elements to ensure the claims amounted to significantly more than just a natural law. See id. at *18-20. Thus, the Court found that the '610 patent is not invalid for lack of patentable subject matter.
Copies of the Memorandum Opinion and Order are attached.
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.
