Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 SEPTEMBER 2018

Obviousness Cannot Be Predicated On What Is Unknown

Custopharm argued that the asserted claims were obvious based on three prior art references.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court finding that the patent challenger failed to prove that patents directed to a testosterone replacement injection therapy were valid and non-obvious. Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., Case No. 17-1719 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2018) (Chen, J).

Endo Pharmaceuticals holds the new drug application for Aveed, a long-acting injectable testosterone undecanoate (TU) formulation. Bayer Intellectual Property and Bayer Pharma own the two patents listed in the Orange Book for Aveed. In 2014, Custopharm's predecessor in interest, Paddock Laboratories, submitted an abbreviated new drug application and a Paragraph IV certification. Endo and Bayer subsequently sued Custopharm for patent infringement.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from