In a recent Law360 article, Lathrop GPM Counsel Tanya D’Souza, Ph.D. and William Scofield examine a pivotal case that could reshape how courts evaluate patent obviousness. Their piece analyzes Purdue Pharma’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which challenges the Federal Circuit’s rigid application of the “nexus” requirement – a standard used to connect real-world evidence of innovation to specific patent claims.
D’Souza and Scofield argue that the current approach risks undervaluing secondary considerations such as commercial success, industry skepticism and long-felt need – especially in pharmaceutical cases governed by the Hatch-Waxman Act. They highlight how Purdue’s abuse-deterrent formulation of OxyContin was dismissed despite compelling evidence, and contrast this with a recent Federal Circuit decision in Ancora v. Roku, which suggests a more flexible interpretation may be emerging.
D’Souza and Scofield offer practical guidance for patent applicants and litigators, emphasizing the importance of building a strong evidentiary record and aligning marketing strategies with claimed features. Their analysis underscores the potential for a Supreme Court decision to restore balance in obviousness determinations and promote innovation in life sciences.
Read the full article on Law360 here [SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED]: Purdue Case Could Transform Patent Obviousness Analyses