FlatWing/Mylan v. Anacor
Full2018-00168 · US9549938
In plain English: The Board reviewed these claims and cancelled all of them.
How to read this page: start with the Case brief above, use (the small numbered links) to open the exact source page they cite, then use Reference material further down for claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground detail.
All challenged claims cancelled
The Board cancelled all six claims of Anacor's Kerydin method patent - and the Federal Circuit affirmed.[18][22]
The '938 patent issues January 24, 2017·FlatWing petitions for review of all 6 claims November 21, 2017·Board institutes on all grounds - no preliminary response filed June 8, 2018·Mylan's IPR2018-01358 joined into the trial October 11, 2018·Oral hearing before the Board March 1, 2019·Final written decision: all 6 claims unpatentable June 5, 2019·Federal Circuit affirms, nonprecedential August 27, 2020
- The '938 patent claims methods of treating toenail fungus with tavaborole - the drug Anacor sold as Kerydin.[4][2][23]
- Four obviousness grounds paired Austin's boron chemistry with onychomycosis treatments and a nail-lacquer formulation patent.[5][6][7]
- Anacor conceded the core method claims; the fight narrowed to whether 5% was a patentable choice. The Board said routine optimization.[14][15]
- Anacor appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed across four consolidated tavaborole IPRs.[21][22]
A clean illustration of the optimization rule - and of what a mid-trial concession does to what's left to fight over.[15][14][16]
- Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Patent Docs · May 17, 2018
- Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu (case writeup)
Oblon
- Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 17-1947 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (opinion text)
Justia (opinion text) · May 14, 2018
Reference material
Claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground records underlying the brief above.
| Claim | Ground 1: §103 — Austin WO95/33754, Brehove US2002/0165121 | Ground 2: §103 — Austin WO95/33754, Brehove US2002/0165121, Samour US6224887 | Ground 3: §103 — Austin WO95/33754, Freeman WO03/009689 | Ground 4: §103 — Austin WO95/33754, Freeman WO03/009689, Samour US6224887 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unpatentable[1] | — | Not reached[2] | — |
| 2 | Unpatentable[1] | — | Not reached[2] | — |
| 3 | — | Unpatentable[3] | — | Not reached[2] |
| 4 | — | Unpatentable[3] | — | Not reached[2] |
| 5 | — | Unpatentable[3] | — | Not reached[2] |
| 6 | — | Unpatentable[3] | — | Not reached[2] |
- [1] Paper 36 at 11-18 (Section C)
- [2] Paper 36 at 30; not reached - claims found unpatentable over the Austin/Brehove(/Samour) grounds
- [3] Paper 36 at 18-33 (Sections C,D); claim 4 at 18
No institution-stage grounds recorded yet.
- Paper 1Paper 1 · Petition
- US9549938Other
- Paper 9Paper 9 · Institution Decision
- Paper 36 (staged as notice-of-appeal exhibit)Paper 36 · Final Written Decision
- 19-2264 (nonprec, 8 consolidated IPRs)Federal Circuit Opinion