Inherent Anticipation: In re Montgomery

The Federal Circuit in this case addressed the issue of anticipation by inherency in the context of the method of treatment claims. The panel affirmed that a claim to ‘a new use for a known compound’ was inherently anticipated by a reference which disclosed a plan for a proposed clinical trial that had not been carried out and the results of the trial were not obtained until after the effective filing date (priority date) of Montgomery’s patent application.

Before discussing this case in particular, let us first see what inherent anticipation is. It is well-known that a prior art reference can defeat patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by expressly disclosing all of the elements of a claimed invention. However, the prior art reference may also anticipate if an apparently missing element of the claim is inherent in the prior art. Thus, the prior reference can also defeat patentability without having to expressly disclose all of the elements in the claim. The elements may simply inhere in a disclosed composition or process. This latter type of reference is said to be called as “inherent anticipation.” In relying upon this doctrine, one must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning reasonably to support a determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily will be present if the teachings of the prior art are followed. The fact that a prior art source may possibly possess the elements of the claimed subject matter is not sufficient to anticipate the claimed subject matter. Thus, Inherency must be a necessary result and not merely a possibility.

In re Montgomery, the patent application at issue (U.S. Patent Application No. 11/118,824) is directed to inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS).

The claims at issue were the following:

42. A method for the treatment or prevention of stroke or its recurrence, wherein said method comprises administering, to a patient diagnosed as in need of such treatment or prevention, an inhibitor of the rennin-angiotensin system, said inhibitor having a ClogP of greater than about 1.

43. The method as claimed in claim 42, wherein the inhibitor of the rennin-angiotensin system comprises at least one inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme.

45. The method as claimed in claim 43, wherein the inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme comprises ramipril.

The USPTO Patent Examiner had rejected the claims as anticipated by four prior art references. The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals affirmed the rejections and on appeal, the Federal Circuit focused only on one reference, the HOPE reference: “The HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) Study: The Design of a Large, Simple Randomized Trial of an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (Ramipril) and Vitamin E in Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events, 12 Can. J. Cardiology 127 (1996)”. The HOPE reference described the design of a large clinical trial of administering ramipril and vitamin E with the objective of preventing myocardial infection, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The HOPE clinical trial study found that patients receiving ramipril had a significant reduction in the risk of stroke, however, these results were not published until after Montgomery’s priority date.

The case also contains an interesting discussion regarding anticipation by inherency between the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. The majority determined that the claims were inherently anticipated by the HOPE reference, which discloses a plan for a clinical trial. The majority opines that for a prior art reference to inherently anticipate a method, the description of the method in that reference does not need to be carried out in fact—that is, the description of the method need only enable the claimed result. However, in the dissent, the Judge emphasized on the importance of inevitability, stating that “were inevitability not required for inherency, a mere proposal for further experimentation could anticipate a claimed invention”.

The majority pointed out that the HOPE reference discloses a detailed protocol for the administration of ramipril to stroke-prone patients, and that administering ramipril to stroke-prone patients “inevitably” treats or prevents stroke. The majority stated that inherent anticipation requires that the claimed method have been actually performed, and that HOPE does not disclose the actual performance of the method: “We stated [in Schering, 339 F.3d at 1381] that anticipation ‘requires only an enabling disclosure,’ not ‘actual creation or reduction to practice,’…the prior art patent inherently anticipated as long as it ‘disclose[d] in an enabling manner the administration of loratadine to patients.’ Id. At 1380; see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex, 403 F.3d 1331, 1343-1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” Thus, the majority determined that the HOPE reference inherently anticipates the claims at issue, emphasizing that it did not matter whether the HOPE clinical trial actually had been carried out because anticipation requires only an enabling disclosure.

In the dissent, Judge Lourie disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. The dissent points out, “[a]n invitation to investigate is not an inherent disclosure” and emphasized that the keystone of the inherency doctrine is an inevitability. The dissent determined that the HOPE reference failed to meet this requirement of inevitability because the HOPE reference “truly expresses only a hope, not achievement of that hope”. He noted that “a mere description of a process that, if it had been carried out, might yield a particular undisclosed result is not inherent anticipation of that result.” It would be interesting to see how the inherent anticipation is analyzed in view of these two differing opinions in the future.

About the Author: Meenakshi Khurana is a Patent Attorney at K&K and is available at meenakshi@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 − one =

Archives

  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010