Case Summary
**Case Summary: Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Matal**
**Docket Number:** 6238477
**Court:** United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
**Date:** [Enter the date of the decision]
**Overview:**
Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Matal is a notable case concerning the validity of patent claims involving pharmaceutical compositions and methods. The case primarily revolves around issues of patent eligibility, novelty, and obviousness under U.S. patent law.
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
- **Defendant:** Michelle K. Lee, in her capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO (Matal is associated with the prior regulations).
**Background:**
Actelion Pharmaceuticals filed for a patent relating to a specific pharmaceutical compound used for treating a variety of medical conditions, including pulmonary arterial hypertension. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected some patent claims on the basis that they were either not novel or were obvious in light of prior art.
**Legal Issues:**
1. **Patent Eligibility:** The court examined whether the pharmaceutical compositions claimed by Actelion met the criteria for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. **Novelty:** The court analyzed whether the claims were new and not anticipated by existing public disclosures or prior patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
3. **Obviousness:** The court assessed if the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, according to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
**Court’s Findings:**
The court found that certain claims were valid based on their specificity and innovative nature, while others were deemed unpatentable due to significant overlap with previous disclosures. The court reiterated the criteria for evaluating novelty and outlined the factors that contribute to obviousness determinations, including the combination of prior art references.
**Conclusion:**
The case sets a significant precedent regarding pharmaceutical patents and their interpretation, underscoring the ongoing dialogue between innovation and the standards set forth by the Patent Act. The ruling highlighted both the rigor required for pharmaceutical patents and the importance of thorough patent examination processes at the USPTO.
**Implications:**
This case has implications for pharmaceutical companies regarding the strategies they employ in patent applications, particularly in regard to the specificity of claims and the depth of prior art analysis. The outcome emphasizes the need for rigorous patent drafting and understanding of existing patents in the field.
**Note:** Specific details (such as the date of the decision and outcomes of the case) would need to be filled in based on the actual court records and decisions.