The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a
district court's obviousness determination, finding that a
patentee's exclusive, in-licensed "blocking" patent
limited the weight of secondary factors favoring non-obviousness of
its follow-on patents. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Case Nos. 17-2078, -2134 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10,
2018) (Taranto, J) (Newman, J, dissenting).
Acorda Therapeutics owns four US patents directed to use of a
sustained-release formulation of 4-aminopyridine (4-AP;
Ampyra®) for improving gait function or speed in
patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Acorda is also an exclusive
licensee of a patent from Elan Corp. that broadly covers methods of
treating MS using a sustained-release formulation of mono- or
di-aminopyridines. The Acorda patents require the recited dose (10
mg), dosing regimen (twice daily), duration of therapy (two weeks)
and pharmacokinetics (serum levels of 15–35 ng/ml) of the
drug, which are
