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

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 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.