
| No Damages for Infringing a Patent that Fails for Obviousness | |
| Description | Richardson-Vicks marketed several medicines under a patent that combined two common ingredients. Other companies that marketed medicines combining the same ingredients were sued by Richardson-Vicks for infringement. Appeals Court affirmed patent invalid for obviousness. |
| Topic | Intellectual Property |
| Key Words | Patent, Obviousness, Infringement |
| C A S E S U M M A R Y | |
| Facts | Richardson-Vicks (RV) owns a patent on an over-the-counter medications sold for the relief of cough, cold, and flu symptoms that combine the analgesic ibuprofen and the decongestant pseudoephedrine. Upjohn, McNeil, and Johnson & Johnson sell OTC medicines which contain the same ingredients in similar ratios. RV sued for infringement. The judge granted RV's motion for judgment of infringement as a matter of law. The jury determined that the patent was valid and held that defendants should pay RV a royalty of seven percent on infringing sales. The judge then overturned the jury verdict and held that as a matter of law there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to hold the patent valid due to obviousness and prior invention. RV appealed. |
| Decision | Affirmed. Medication that combines ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine is invalid for obviousness in view of the prior art. Patent is invalid. |
| Citation |
Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., ---F.3d--- (1997 WL 605156, Fed. Cir.)
or 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir., 1997) |
Back to Intellectual Listing