Evidence of Priority to Provisional Application and that Prior Art Was Not Work of Another Defeated Obviousness Challenge in IPR

Apr 6, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

Every claim in the ’703 Patent requires treatment with the composition for at least two weeks. The ’703 Patent’s corresponding provisional application described a treatment regimen with fampridine that included a two-week upward titration to reach a certain dosage followed by 12 weeks of stable treatment at that dosage. Certain of the claims also require an average steady state plasma concentration (“CavSS”) of the drug within a certain range. The provisional application reported the CavSS levels for treatment using a 10 mg dosage of the drug.

Petitioner argued that disclosure of a 12-week treatment does not specifically teach treatment for two weeks and that there would always be two different concentrations used during the two-week titration period disclosed in the provisional application. Petitioner also argued that the provisional application failed to teach the entire claimed CavSS range. In response, Acorda’s experts explained that there would be no change in dosage during the two-week titration period that corresponded to stable treatment using the lowest dose (10 mg). Moreover, one of skill would consider the standard deviation of reported CavSS values and would understand that the application discloses CavSS values across the entire claimed range. Acorda also introduced declarations from inventors and noninventors indicating that the cited portions of S-1 were the inventors’ own work.

The Board credited Acorda’s experts’ testimony related to the lowest-dose treatment and concluded that the provisional application supported the “two-week limitations” of the ’703 Patent claims. The Board also agreed that one of skill would consider the standard deviation and would have understood the provisional application to disclose the claimed CavSS range. Accordingly, the Board concluded that all claims of the ’703 Patent were entitled to the priority date of the provisional application and that the S-1 reference was therefore not 102(b) prior art to any claim in the IPR.

The Board next considered whether the S-1 reference was the work of others. The Board concluded that Petitioner met its initial burden by presenting S-1 as prior art that, on its face, lists authors that differ from the inventors. However, Acorda responded with declarations indicating that the inventors were the sole source of the cited portions of S-1, satisfying its burden of production to refute Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner’s reply did not persuade the Board that S-1 was not solely attributable to the named inventors. Thus, the Board held that S-1 was not “work by others” and could not qualify as prior art under 102(a). S-1 was therefore not prior art to any claim in the IPR. Because all potential obviousness grounds included S-1, the Board held that Petitioner failed to prove the claims of the ’703 Patent unpatentable as obvious.

Finally, the Board noted that the patents challenged in three related IPR proceedings (IPR2015-01853, IPR2015-01857 and IPR2015-01858) included similar claims. The Board applied its analysis to the claims in those proceedings and, in each case, determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove those claims unpatentable. The Board’s Final Written Decision therefore resolved those related IPRs.

Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. IPR2015-01850, IPR2015-01853, IPR2015-01857, IPR2015-01858, Paper No. 72 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2017).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.