Your pharma client, DrugCo Inc., has a promising new compound. DrugCo has synthesized the compound and knows what it does. DrugCo wants you to draft and file a patent application immediately but it doesn’t yet have the experimental data to satisfy the requirements for patentability under 35 U.S.C. �101 concerning utility and enablement. Since time is of the essence, you include prophetic examples in the application based on your belief of what the compound does and how it works.
Throughout the prosecution of your client’s patent application, you repeatedly emphasize the prophetic “tests” in attempting to overcome rejections to the claims. Eventually the examiner allows the claims based on your representations. Shortly after the patent issues, another company attempts to obtain approval for a generic version of your patented (and now FDA-approved) drug. After your client sues for infringement, the defendant asserts that your patent is unenforceable based on inequitable conduct in obtaining the patent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
