Coolidge v. Efendic patent interference
Client: Amylin Pharmaceuticals
Representation: Coolidge v. Efendic patent interference
Lead Professionals:
David R. Marsh PhD
Kristan Lansbery PhD
Practice Areas:
Appellate and Supreme Court
Litigation
Intellectual Property - Patents
Industry: Healthcare
Region: North America
Description:
Arnold & Porter LLP represented Amylin Pharmaceuticals as junior party Coolidge in a patent interference proceeding before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The BPAI determined an interference-in-fact between Coolidge Patent No. 6,284,725 and Efendic Application No. 09/400,802. The interference was directed to methods involving the administration of glucogen-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) for amelioration of organ tissue injury caused by reperfusion of blood flow following a period of ischemia.
The Board held that claims of senior party Efendic were unpatentable for lack of enablement and written description, threshold issues depriving senior party of standing and concluding the interference contest early. Several other substantive motions were filed by Coolidge but not decided as being moot in light of the decision on the threshold issues. Efendic's challenge to the Coolidge patent based on anticipation was denied for failing to demonstrate with credible and sufficient evidence that Coolidge's claimed method was a natural result flowing from the operation of the cited prior art.
Efendic's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was quickly dismissed. Coolidge filed a motion to dismiss based on Efendic's lack of standing, and Efendic filed a motion to dismiss based on CAFC Rule 31(d) shortly thereafter.