01.02.14
In a lawsuit from CreAgri Inc. arguing that Pinnaclife Inc. infringed upon its patents for olive-based anti-inflammatory supplements, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh ended up throwing out the case and overturning both of CreAgri’s patents.
CreAgri sued Pinnaclife in December 2011, alleging that Pinnaclife’s olive-based supplements infringed its own patents. CreAgri’s patents described how to use the wastewater byproducts from olive oil manufacturing to create nutritional supplements with purified hydroxytyrosol, a naturally occurring compound. The patents also said the supplements could be used to treat inflammation throughout the body, including the heart, brain and lungs, as well as treat “AIDS-associated neurological disorder,” according to the opinion.
But the ‘599 patent, which described the inflammation treatment, was invalid because it included no data to support its conclusions, the court held. CreAgri claimed inflammation could be treated with a wide range of doses — from 0.1 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, to 2,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight — but could not point to scientific studies proving the supplement would work, according to the opinion.
“The specification conclusively reveals that the inventor sought to claim a method of treating inflammation based on no more than a hope that olive-derived compositions would one day be used effectively to treat inflammation caused by a wide variety of factors,” the opinion said. “As the inventor himself conceded during his deposition, this patent was filed with the anticipation that the compositions could be used as claimed, but without data showing as much.”
CreAgri countered that it cited five studies that allegedly made connections between the chemicals in the supplement and inflammation treatment, but the court found that the studies merely described potential experiments and did not show any results.
The court also ruled that CreAgri’s second patent, for a method of creating the supplement from olives, was invalid because it was anticipated by prior art.
CreAgri’s patent was filed months after a patent titled “Antioxidants compositions extracted from olives and olive byproducts,” which detailed a process for creating the supplements.
CreAgri argued that the patent was valid because it described an “aqueous extract of olive,” while the prior patent described a mostly methanol-based solution. But the court ruled that “aqueous extract” had not been constructed to mean pure water, and that the methanol and olive pulp solution qualified.
CreAgri sued Pinnaclife in December 2011, alleging that Pinnaclife’s olive-based supplements infringed its own patents. CreAgri’s patents described how to use the wastewater byproducts from olive oil manufacturing to create nutritional supplements with purified hydroxytyrosol, a naturally occurring compound. The patents also said the supplements could be used to treat inflammation throughout the body, including the heart, brain and lungs, as well as treat “AIDS-associated neurological disorder,” according to the opinion.
But the ‘599 patent, which described the inflammation treatment, was invalid because it included no data to support its conclusions, the court held. CreAgri claimed inflammation could be treated with a wide range of doses — from 0.1 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, to 2,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight — but could not point to scientific studies proving the supplement would work, according to the opinion.
“The specification conclusively reveals that the inventor sought to claim a method of treating inflammation based on no more than a hope that olive-derived compositions would one day be used effectively to treat inflammation caused by a wide variety of factors,” the opinion said. “As the inventor himself conceded during his deposition, this patent was filed with the anticipation that the compositions could be used as claimed, but without data showing as much.”
CreAgri countered that it cited five studies that allegedly made connections between the chemicals in the supplement and inflammation treatment, but the court found that the studies merely described potential experiments and did not show any results.
The court also ruled that CreAgri’s second patent, for a method of creating the supplement from olives, was invalid because it was anticipated by prior art.
CreAgri’s patent was filed months after a patent titled “Antioxidants compositions extracted from olives and olive byproducts,” which detailed a process for creating the supplements.
CreAgri argued that the patent was valid because it described an “aqueous extract of olive,” while the prior patent described a mostly methanol-based solution. But the court ruled that “aqueous extract” had not been constructed to mean pure water, and that the methanol and olive pulp solution qualified.
