Obviousness of Purdue patents affirmed by CAFC

In Purdue Pharma v. PAR, the CAFC affirmed a finding of
obviousness.

Of unexpected results to negate the obviousness finding:

According to Par, Purdue presented no
evidence of unexpected results over the Oshlack patent’s
controlled-release formulations and failed to rebut evi-
dence that only routine experimentation was required to
make the claimed formulation.

The CAFC agreed:

We agree with Par and affirm the district court’s deci-
sion finding the ’887 and ’430 patents would have been
obvious in view of Oshlack.

(...)

Finally, we also reject Purdue’s argument that the
district court placed insufficient weight on its secondary
considerations of nonobviousness. Such considerations
here do not rebut Par’s clear case of obviousness. See
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2008).