Federal Circuit Confirms That Specific Treatments Are Not Abstract Ideas—But They Still Might Be Obvious

Mar 19, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its related companies (collectively, “Boehringer”) asserted three patents relating to use of DPP-4 inhibitors to treat type 2 diabetes in patients with certain medical conditions against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., its related companies and Aurobindo (collectively, “Mylan”). The inventors of those patents determined that, unlike other diabetes treatments, DPP-4 inhibitors are generally secreted through the liver as opposed to the kidneys. Accordingly, DPP-4 inhibitors are advantageous for use in patients with kidney disease and other similar conditions.

At the district court, Mylan moved for judgment on the pleadings that the claims from one of the asserted patents were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed, holding the claims invalid as claiming the abstract idea of “administering the DPP-IV inhibitor to the targeted patient population.” The district court then conducted a bench trial and found the asserted claims of the other two patents invalid for obviousness-type double patenting and invalid as obvious because the claimed invention’s doses of 2.5 mg and 5 mg fall within the prior art range of 1-100 mg.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s Section 101 ruling at step one of Alice. In so doing, the court relied on its decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals, where it held that claims were patentable where they covered a method of treating patients with schizophrenia by performing a genetic test and, based on the results of that test, selecting and administering a particular dose of a drug. Although the Vanda inventors recognized the underlying biological relationships, they did not claim those relationships—they claimed a specific method of treating a specific disease. Similarly, here, although the inventors recognized that certain DPP-4 inhibitors are metabolized by the liver instead of the kidneys, that is not what the claims cover. The claims are directed to a specific method of treating a specific type of patient with type 2 diabetes, and are therefore patent eligible at step one of the Alice test.

In the same opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that claims of two other patents were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting as well as obviousness. Those claims cover administering the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin in 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses. The prior art disclosed use of compounds, including linagliptin, within a range of 1-100 mg. Based on this disclosure, the district court applied a presumption of obviousness and found in the alternative that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained the claimed dosages through routine experimentation. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s alternative finding, declining to address the district court’s presumption determination. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on testimony indicating that dose ranging studies would guide skilled artisans to look at the lowest end of the dose range for a compound like linagliptin, which is known to have a high potency. Accordingly, the court held that, in light of the disclosed 1-100 mg range, a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of arriving at the 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses through routine optimization, and there was no error in the district court’s obviousness analysis.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Internationl GMBH, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG  v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. No. 2019-1172 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2020)

Practice Tip: When analyzing whether a method of treatment claim is patent eligible, consider whether it claims a natural correlation or observation, or whether it claims a specific method of treatment. And, if the claimed treatment covers using a specific dose, consider whether the prior art teaches an overlapping range and a reason why a skilled artisan would likely arrive at the claimed dose.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.