Results from Phase I and II Clinical Trials and Pending Phase III Clinical Trial Insufficient to Render Obvious Method of Treating Cancer

July 26, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

In an ANDA case in the District of Delaware, the court has rejected an obviousness challenge to a patented method of increasing survival in patients having prostate cancer. The court found that early clinical trial results and an ongoing Phase III study provided “hope” that the method would work, but not a reasonable expectation of success.

The case concerned the defendant’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Jevtana® (cabazitaxel), which is used to treat a type of prostate cancer called metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The Orange Book listing for Jevtana® included a patent to a method of improving survival in patients having mCRPC where the method included giving a certain dose of the drug cabazitaxel. The defendant challenged the validity of the patent, contending that the claims were obvious over the prior art. In particular, the defendant cited art that described the results from Phase I and II trials that had used the drug in various types of cancers, and information about the Phase III trial that was testing the drug in patients having mCRPC.

The court began its obviousness analysis by considering whether there was a motivation to use the drug to increase an mCRPC patient’s survival. The court found that the prior art provided such motivation based on promising preclinical and Phase I results against the disease, and Phase II results in breast cancer.

The court then considered the defendant’s argument that the same art would have also provided a reasonable expectation of success. In particular, the court considered results from Phase I that indicated the drug had some activity, results from the Phase II trial against breast cancer, the plaintiff’s statement to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug had “promising activity,” the fact that the plaintiff had initiated Phase III studies and the lack of safety concerns or other negative data for the drug.

The court found that the defendant had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable expectation of success. The court noted that while conclusive proof of efficacy was not required, mere cautious optimism was not sufficient, and such optimism was the most that the evidence showed. The court found that the Phase I results were encouraging and showed that further evaluation was warranted, but they did not show that success was expected against mCRPC. Adding the Phase II breast cancer results only added to the hope of success, not an expectation of success. The court noted that many initially promising inventions failed in this area of research, and expert testimony showed that a variety of putative cancer drugs had failed in Phase III. Finally, the plaintiff’s “promising activity” statement and the existence of the Phase III trial showed only that the drug was worth studying, not that there was an expectation of success.

Practice Tip: In district court, a patent challenger faces a high burden to show that a patent is invalid for obviousness. Where a patent’s claims require some type of efficacy, particularly in a difficult disease setting, showing that success was reasonably expected can be harder to do. Parties should consider whether there is sufficient evidence, including expert testimony, to show both motivation to try as well as a reasonable expectation that the method of treatment would be successful.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-804-RGA CONSOLIDATED, 2023 WL 4175334 (D. Del. June 26, 2023)

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.