Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

Patents

SHOULD THERE BE A NUMERICAL QUANTIFIER FOR SECTION 3(D)?

First posted on spicyip.com on May 31, 2010Claim 1 of patent 207232 provides: The compound 2-(2-amino-l,6-dihydro-6-oxo-purin-9-yl) methoxy-3-hydroxy-l-propanyl-L-valinate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in the form of its (R)- or (S)-diastereomers, or in the form of mixtures of the two diastereomers. The reasoning for §3(d) is based upon an obviousness analysis (§§ 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja) inventive step). But the decision cannot substitute an obviousness analysis for the analysis required under § 3(d), because § 3(d) sets a higher bar than the inventive step analysis. In this case, the mono ester was demonstrated to have more bio-availability compared to that of bis ester of ... Continue reading