Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals

Representative Claim(s)

  1. A method for analyzing an enoxaparin sample for the presence or amount of a non naturally occurring sugar associated with peak 9 of FIG. 1 that results from a method of making enoxaparin that included β-eliminative cleavage with a benzyl ester and depolymerization, comprising: providing an enoxaparin sample that has been exhaustively digested with two or more heparin degrading enzymes; using a separation method to determine, in the enoxaparin sample that has been contacted with two or more heparin degrading enzymes, the presence of a structural signature associated with the non naturally occurring sugar associated with peak 9 of FIG. 1 that results from a method of making enoxaparin that includes β-eliminative cleavage with a benzyl ester and depolymerization; making a determination about the enoxaparin sample based upon a comparison of the determination of the presence of a structural signature associated with the non naturally occurring sugar associated with peak 9 to a reference standard for enoxaparin, and determining the presence of the structural signature associated with the non naturally occurring sugar associated with peak 9 of FIG. 1 in a second batch of enoxaparin, to thereby analyze the enoxaparin sample.

Posture:

Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law

Exception Categories: Law of Nature, Abstract Idea

The entirety of the court’s analysis is below:

“Because the ‘886 patent “[is] directed to a new and useful method” of ensuring the quality of enoxaparin and involves a series of laboratory steps rather than a law of nature or abstract idea, this Court concludes that the asserted claims involve patentable subject matter. Therefore, with respect to the affirmative defense that the asserted claims do not involve patent eligible subject matter, Momenta’s motion will be allowed.”