June 8, 2026·25-1060·Panel Decision·Richard Seeborg·By Maria Santos
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling that claim eighteen of the patent was invalid due to obviousness. The court found that the use of a coating pan for heating the tablets was an obvious modification based on prior art.
Background
This case involves a patent dispute over an abuse-deterrent oxycodone formulation. The trial court found the patent claims invalid due to obviousness, leading to this appeal.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the prior art to use a coating pan for heating the tablets, which was a known device in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
What it means going forward
The ruling invalidates claim eighteen of the patent, impacting the patent holder’s ability to enforce this claim against generic competitors.
