In a recent federal case, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the issues of subject matter eligibility and obviousness were once again brought to the fore. The case follows on from landmark Supreme Court decisions including Mayo, Myriad, Alice, and most notably, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), in which the Court first established the standards for determining obviousness since the Federal Circuit was created by Congress in 1982.
To be clear, obviousness, in legal parlance, concerns whether a specific invention or concept is so obvious that it should not be patentable. The standard for determining this was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in the KSR Int’l v. Teleflex case of 2007. And now, this precedent has re-surfaced in the recent case of Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals.
The case between pharmaceutical giants Sanofi-Aventis and Mylan Pharmaceuticals taps into the same vein of contention and adds yet another chapter to the ongoing debate on these key issues within patent law.
Gaining insight into the various nuances of this litigation will be instrumental for legal professionals handling patent law and dealing with matters of subject matter eligibility and obviousness. Further details and a more comprehensive understanding of the case can be found at JD Supra.
Legal professionals around the globe will be observing the development of this case, as it could potentially result in nuanced shifts in patent law interpreting the standards of obviousness and subject matter eligibility. The results may indeed have significant implications for both corporations and law firms involved in the field of pharmaceutical patents.