Successfully prosecuting a patent is a very complex process. There is a substantial amount of research and paperwork involved. Those handling patent prosecution on behalf of a business need to be familiar with federal procedures and paperwork. They must perform thorough reviews of existing patents to make sure that the new patent does not duplicate or infringe on existing patents. Additionally, they also need to be familiar with court rulings related to patents of various types.
It’s common for people to assume that the bigger a company is, the easier it is for the company to secure and enforce a patent. However, a major court ruling against a large, successful company has helped to demonstrate how even the biggest companies may run into patent complications.
The courts ruled against Purdue in its OxyContin appeal
OxyContin is one of the best-known prescription painkillers. OxyContin has been on the market since well before fentanyl and similar synthetic opioids became widespread. The drug has long been a popular pain management tool prescribed for a variety of medical issues with pain-related symptoms. Purdue has sought to renew and enforce its patents for the drug, only to have the courts rule against the company.
This legal matter has been under scrutiny in the courts since 2000, when Purdue initially attempted to enforce its OxyContin patent against the rival drug maker Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. The company lost an appeal in 2005 based on allegations of the company misrepresenting the development process.
Since then, there have been several major rulings against Purdue and its various OxyContin patents. Most recently, a judge ruled that the anti-crush patents used to formulate drugs that were hard to abuse are invalid because the technology involved was essentially common-sense.
This recent ruling in federal appeals court in Delaware affirms that certain patents protecting OxyContin are actually invalid. The loss of a patent, especially one attached to a commonly prescribed medication, can be a major setback for an organization.
This case highlights how important it is for companies that invest in research and development to also invest in the right support during the patent prosecution process. Successfully prosecuting a patent initially may not protect a company if issues with legal reasoning eventually invalidate that patent. Organizations addressing patent-related concerns often require specialized support from outside counsel to successfully navigate intellectual property law.