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

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.