PTAB Denies Petition for IPR of Arthritis Drug Patent

Dec 10, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Petitioner, Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC, is a subsidiary of a hedge fund managed by Kyle Bass. The patent owner is Pozen Inc. Horizon Pharma PLC is the manufacturer of Vimovo. Petitioner has also filed three other petitions involving patents related to the ’907 patent.

The ’907 patent discloses pharmaceutical compositions that provide for the coordinated release of an acid inhibitor and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The claims of the ’907 patent require an acid inhibitor present in an amount effective to raise the gastric pH of a patient to at least 3.5.

Petitioner argued that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to U.S. Patent No. 5,698,225 (“Gimet”), which discloses an NSAID in combination with an acid inhibitor, in view of clinical studies showing the effect of an acid inhibitor on gastric pH levels. The PTAB rejected this argument, stating that Gimet related to the application of an NSAID in the lower gastrointestinal tract, as opposed to the stomach or duodenum application claimed in the ’907 patent. The PTAB also stated that the clinical study Petitioner cited did not support the position that the preferred dosage in Gimet would raise gastric pH to 3.5 or higher.

Petitioner contended that some claims of the ’907 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,204,118 (“Goldman”), which also discloses an NSAID in combination with an acid inhibitor. The PTAB rejected this argument, stating that Goldman does not teach the coated NSAID and the acid inhibitor without a complete enteric coating as required by the claims at issue.

The PTAB held that the Petition had not established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the claims of the ’907 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01241, Paper 22 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2015)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.