Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al., v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. Nos. 13-527 – RGA; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al., v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 14-111 – RGA (Consolidated), August 31, 2015.

Andrews, J.  Findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the validity of plaintiff’s patent.

Plaintiff asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031, which is directed to a pharmaceutical composition containing a compound to rivastigmine.  The parties stipulated to infringement if the patent was valid.  Defendant maintained that the asserted claims were obvious under §103(a) and invalid under obviousness-type double patenting.  The Court disagreed.  Defendant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims were obvious.  A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known rivastigmine was susceptible to oxidative degradation in January 1998.  The asserted claims also are not invalid under obviousness-type double patenting.  The prior art does not disclose rivastigmine’s susceptibility to oxidative degradation.  Alternatively, obviousness-type double patenting fails as a matter of law because the common ownership requirement is not met.