In Pozen, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the patents at issue were not invalid as obvious and were infringed by the subject Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Comparing this case to In re Droge, I cannot help but wonder how much the procedural posture impacted the Federal Circuit’s decisions. While the court reached opposite determinations as to obviousness, in each case it affirmed the decision on appeal. Continue reading this entry
In Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected Duramed’s arguments that prosecution history estoppel did not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents under Festo because the equivalent at issue was not foreseeable. In so doing, the Court illuminated the rather narrow applicability of the “unforeseeable” route to rebutting a presumption of prosecution history estoppel.
Can the doctrine of equivalents be invoked to establish infringement of a claim that recites a numerical value?
Yes, according to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
Can the concept of significant digits be used to establish infringement?
Although the court does not say so directly, its opinion indicates that the answer to this question also is "yes."