Back to Archived News
Crestor Patent Invalidity Evidence Uncovered By Article One Partners Community
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
AstraZeneca Patent Shown to be Invalid Based on New Prior Art; JSA Technologies Patent Study Yields Strong Invalidity Evidence
New York, NY -- Article One Partners, LLC has discovered new prior art impacting the validity of AstraZeneca's Crestor U.S. drug patent, in closing out another round of Patent Studies. The Article One community uncovered premier validity evidence which can show the Crestor patent to be invalid, as verified by independent outside counsel, Darby & Darby, and an independent expert. CRESTOR (rosuvastatin calcium) is a prescription drug for treating high cholesterol. The discovery of this patent invalidity evidence can impact the industry litigation to market generic rosuvastatin drugs. The prior art (further detailed below) was provided by an Article One community Advisor with the username Columbo, who will receive a monetary award.
JSA Technologies Study Uncovers Two Key References
In addition to the Crestor Study, Article One's JSA Technologies Study for U.S. Patent No. 6,963,857 uncovered a broad range of prior art references, including two references that each separately can show the patent to be invalid under the strongest level of invalidity evidence, called anticipation. The JSA patent involves transferring funds from a second account to a first account with the accounts on separate networks and servers--such as transferring funds onto university student ID cards. Two Advisors, with usernames Ramesh and Patented, identified the evidence and will share the monetary reward.
Article One already has begun to license the proprietary collection, with law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP first to license. The JSA Study uncovered new dramatic invalidating prior art that extensive traditional prior art searches didn't produce. With so many Article One Advisors using different approaches, a wide variety of highest quality references were found--providing two separate paths to invalidity under "102 anticipation," including a U.S. patent, and obscure publications about a product offered in 1997. The patent has been asserted in litigation against Informed Decisions Corp./Cashnet and has been described by JSA as being widely licensed to universities.
Crestor Study & Industry Impact
Nine generic drug manufacturers have submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications with Para IV certifications (ANDAs) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking approval to market generic versions of Crestor. AstraZeneca countered with litigation for patent infringement against these nine drug companies, with court cases proceeding in the discovery phase, in the District of Delaware.
The Article One community uncovered references that are crucial for an invalidity position for the U.S. patent to Crestor. This includes references that can teach the claim elements, why the lead molecule would be selected, what results could be expected from substitutions to the lead molecule, and why a person of ordinary skill at the time would have applied the teachings to create the claimed invention. The references can form a clear, convincing invalidity position as verified by the independent outside counsel and expert referenced above. Both the Crestor and JSA Study proprietary collections of prior art are available for license from Article One.
"The U.S. Patent Office does high quality work, but its resources are limited to fully research the validity of all the patents it issues. With the public bearing the burden of this limitation by paying monopoly pricing, Article One provides a counter-balance through citizen's review of granted patents," said Cheryl Milone, Article One Partners founder and CEO. "This Patent Study related to AstraZeneca's Crestor drug is a perfect example, where the public has provided information to potentially correct an improper patent grant. This citizen review is having a tremendous impact. Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent Office moved forward with a re-exam of Merck's Singulair U.S. patent based directly upon relevant prior art discovered by the Article One community. Not only do the Advisors eliminate monopoly pricing but they receive premium compensation for doing so."
Article One also has announced the closing of additional Patent Studies: Opana ER-Penwest; Effexor XR-Wyeth; Lotrel-Novartis; Prevacid-Takeda; Lipitor-Pfizer; Angioplasty Stent-Wall; Keyboard-RIMM; and Wireless Transmissions-Wi-Lan. Studies which are closed indicate that the Article One prior art collections do not form an independent basis for an invalidity position related to the subject patents at this time. Advisors continue to send in validity evidence for closed Studies to earn profit sharing points. In the event that further submissions are relevant to a validity position, Article One will compensate the Advisors with the applicable stated reward of up to $50,000. Closed Studies also contain state of the art collections for the Study patents. These Article One proprietary collections are available for license to interested parties.
Importantly, only a U.S. federal court or the U.S. Patent Office can invalidate a U.S. patent. Article One announces only its own decision for the outcome of Studies--based on its analysis of the prior art for purposes of determining winners to its Patent Studies. A court or the Patent Office may disagree with Article One's decision. While Article One obtains outside counsel verification, Article One's invalidity position is not a legal opinion.
About Article One Partners
Article One Partners is a global online community working to legitimize the validity of patents. Community members - whom Article One calls Advisors - have an opportunity to send in previously undisclosed evidence of patent validity. By tapping the unique knowledge and referral networks of our Advisors, this evidence known as prior art can be discovered. Prior art may come from published content anywhere in the world and in any language, including: previous patents; news or academic publications; non-digitized documents such as textbooks; or any public document provided to others, including conference or academic papers and business materials. Article One and its Clients analyze the prior art to determine whether it can show patents to be legitimized or invalid.
If Article One or its Clients determine that the submissions of its Advisors can show patents to be invalid, Advisors earn up to $50,000. Advisors who actively build the community also earn premium compensation in a Profit Sharing Plan, distributing approximately five percent (5%) of Article One's net annual profit. The result is a highly-rewarded community providing a second, citizen's review of U.S. patents to justify monopoly pricing for true innovation and energize U.S. patent reform. To learn more about Article One Partners, or to become a member of our community, please visit www.ArticleOnePartners.com.
Article One Partners and AOP are service marks of Article One Partners, LLC. All other product and company names are the trademarks and property of their respective owners.
Back to Archived News