the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

Yanwen  Fei
Aldo  Martinez
Frank J. West
Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Sameer  Gokhale
Elissa L. Sanford
Teddy S. Gron
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Norman F. Oblon
Brian B. Darville
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Jianping (James)  Wu
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Edwin D. Garlepp
Johnny  Ma
Kevin M. McKinley
Ryan W. Smith
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Diane  Jones
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Richard D. Kelly
Robert T. Pous
Christopher  Ricciuti
Robert  Tarcu
John F. Presper
John S. Kern
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Carl E. Schlier
Arthur I. Neustadt
Yuki  Onoe
Akihiro  Yamazaki
John  Sipos
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Alec M. Royka
Tia D. Fenton
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Grace E. Kim
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Robert W. Downs
Eric W. Schweibenz
Christopher I. Donahue
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang, Ph.D.
Craig R. Feinberg
Andrew M. Ollis
Steven B. Chang
Charles L. Gholz
Colin B. Harris
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Surinder  Sachar
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Alexander B. Englehart
James R. Love
Kevin Ross  Davis
Dale M. Shaw
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Anna Z. Lloyd
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our

History

Get to know our History

1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our

ACCOLADES

A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +


Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +

Downloadable

Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

Biogen v. Mylan: Make Sure Your Patent Applications Cover Your Current R&D

  • December 1, 2021
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Practices

Associated Technologies


Yesterday, in Biogen v. Mylan, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims in Biogen’s U.S. patent 8,399,514 (the ’514 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s previous invalidity determination.

The ’514 claims are directed to treating multiple sclerosis (MS) using Tecfidera® (dimethyl fumarate -- DMF) in an amount of about 480 mg/day.  The ’514 patent claims priority from a provisional application filed in 2007.

The Federal Circuit noted that the ’514 patent contains only one paragraph related to treating diseases which mentions “about 480 mg/day.”  Significantly, the Federal Circuit pointed out that this paragraph (1) is not linked to amounts for treating specific diseases, let alone linked to specific amounts for treating MS; and (2) only identifies about 480 mg/day “at the bottom end of the spectrum of a DMF 480–720 mg/day range.”  Indeed, this paragraph cautions that “[e]ffective doses will also vary, as recognized by those skilled in the art, dependent on route of administration, excipient usage, and the possibility of co-usage with other therapeutic treatments including use of other therapeutic agents.” 

So could this paragraph really indicate that the inventor(s) had in mind, at the time the ’514 application was filed, a specific amount of DMF to treat MS?  At minimum, it is understandable why the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s analysis (or at least did not have sufficient reason to overturn the district court’s decision) that the  ’514 patent did not indicate the specific concentration of “about 480 mg/day” for treating MS.   

It is interesting that the Federal Circuit noted that the Biogen inventor initially named on the application in 2007 was Dr. Lukashev (a Biogen scientist who focused on more basic research related to pathways) – Dr. O’Neill was not listed as a co-inventor at that time as he did not work on pathways.  Rather, O’Neill was added as an inventor in 2011 when the application was focused on methods of treating MS.

The Federal Circuit noted:  “[w]hen asked during trial, Lukashev testified that he did not know why O’Neill was added as an inventor.   Lukashev also corroborated the original application’s emphasis on drug discovery by noting that his work had encompassed ‘a more exploratory nature. It[ was] to explore potential for follow-on compound discovery . . . .’ (alteration in original). And, more importantly, he ‘denied that his research could be extrapolated to a clinical dose of DMF; it ‘was never the focus of [his] work to inform the clinical dosing of [DMF].’’”

Here’s the point regarding the inventorship discussion:  was Biogen trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by adding MS treatment claims in 2011 to an application directed to pathway research filed in 2007?  Is this why it was easier for the district court to find (and the Federal Circuit to agree) that the description in the ’514 patent did not correspond to the claims directed to treating MS?  Would Biogen have been better off filing a new application directed to treating MS once it had determined to use 480 mg/day in phase III trials instead of trying to use the pending application as a vehicle for such claims?

If the Federal Circuit’s Biogen decision highlights one action point going forward for any company, not just pharma companies, it is this:  make sure your patent applications keep up with your current R&D efforts.  You cannot always assume that previously-filed applications will be sufficient to protect current R&D work.  Sometimes it makes more sense to file new applications rather than trying to repurpose older, more general applications.