Method of Treatment Claims That Incorporate Inventive Steps Are Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Sep 1, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

Vanda’s claims at issue were directed to methods of treating patients with schizophrenia or a schizoaffective disorder by administering a particular dose of the compound iloperidone, where the correct dose is determined based on the results of genetic testing. During development of iloperidone, Vanda discovered that patients with a certain genetic mutation in an enzyme called CYP2D6 poorly metabolize iloperidone, and those patients therefore have increased concentrations of iloperidone in their blood. Increased concentrations of iloperidone can lead to serious side effects, including a type of abnormal heart rhythm that can result in sudden death. Vanda’s method claims are based on this discovery and require that genetic testing be performed on a patient before the patient is administered iloperidone to determine whether the patient has a genetic mutation in CYP2D6. If the patient does not have the genetic mutation, the patient receives the maximum dose of the drug. If the patient does have the genetic mutation and is thus a poor metabolizer of the drug, the dose of the drug is reduced by half (thereby reducing the likelihood of experiencing serious side effects).

Roxane argued that Vanda’s method claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter because the claims cover a law of nature applied in a routine and conventional way. To decide this issue, the court applied the two-step analysis of Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, the court determined whether the asserted method claims depend on laws of nature. According to the court, the claims depend on the natural relationship among iloperidone, mutations in CYP2D6 that cause poor metabolism of iloperidone and raise the concentration of the drug in the blood, and the effect of the increased concentration of iloperidone on normal heart rhythms. Thus, the court found that the claims do depend on laws of nature. Second, the court analyzed whether the claims incorporate some additional non-routine or non-conventional step to transform the nature of the claims into patent eligible subject matter. Vanda’s method claims require genetic testing to determine whether a patient has a CYP2D6 mutation, and, based on the results of that testing, determining the appropriate dose of the administered drug. Relying on competing expert testimony, the court found that Roxane failed to prove that the genetic testing required by the claims and the results of that testing were routine or conventional. The court also noted that it found persuasive that the step of adjusting the dose of the drug does not apply to all patients, but only to those with the genetic mutation, such that the dosage step requires applying genetic testing in a highly specified way. The court thus concluded that the combination of elements recited in the claims is sufficient to ensure that the claims are directed to significantly more than just a natural law.

Vanda Pharma. Inc. v. Roxane Labs, Inc., 13-1973, 14-757-GMS (D. Del. August 25, 2016) (Judge Sleet).

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.