Court denies hearing for patent case
federal appeals court has denied a request by the University for an en banc hearing of its patent infringement case involving the class of drugs called cox-2 inhibitors, with four judges dissenting.
In February, a three-judge panel of that court upheld a lower court's ruling that declared the University's patent invalid on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient information to meet what the court described as a "written description" requirement. An en banc hearing, if granted, would have put the case before all 12 judges of the appeals court.
"This is obviously disappointing, although the fact that there are five separate opinions written confirms the view that this is a major issue of patent law," says President Jackson. "We will be reading the opinions and considering our next steps."
The University's case stems back to 1992, when it filed an application to protect the inventions of Donald Young and other biomedical researchers who had discovered the gene responsible for producing the enzyme called cox-2 and revealed its role in causing inflammation and the methods for identifying drugs that would suppress inflammation without encouraging unwanted side effects such as stomach upset.
The announcement at a conference of the discoveries by the University scientists set in motion a worldwide race among pharmaceutical companies to identify drugs that would inhibit the action of the enzyme. In April 2000, the University was awarded U.S. patents covering the inventions and relating back to the filing date in 1992. After receiving the patents, the University filed an infringement lawsuit against Pfizer, who in the interim had starting making and marketing the popular cox-2 inhibitor Celebrex.
Maintained by University Public Relations
Please send your comments and suggestions to:
Public Relations.
