RVMD: Our Legal Expert Sees A Low Likelihood Of Winning in Court, Though In The Clinic, We Favor Darax

Research evidence excerpt

RVMD: Our Legal Expert Sees A Low Likelihood Of Winning in Court, Though In The Clinic, We Favor Darax

ue to be a point of interest. Recall,

RVMD recently filed a legal complaint in a letter to ERAS following its AllPricedvaluesas ofin priorUSD unlesstradingotherwiseday's marketnoted.close, EST (unless otherwise noted).

landmark ph.III win for daraxonrasib in PDAC, demanding that ERAS cease

all U.S. development and commercialization activities for ERAS-0015, their

investigatory pan-RAS inhibitor. The legal action rests on three claims:

(1) that ‘0015 infringes RVMD's U.S. Patent No. 12,409,225 (the "'225

Patent") under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE); (2) that a third party

misappropriated RVMD's trade secrets in connection with a patent relating

to ‘0015, rendering ERAS liable as a licensee; and (3) that ERAS made

improper and deceptive comparative public disclosures pitting ‘0015 data

against darax data. We had the opportunity to speak to a legal expert and

dive into precedent cases to better understand how this dispute may play

out.

The doctrine of equivalents has historically represented a high hurdle to

clear. Recall, the doctrine of equivalents can broadly be described as:

If two devices do the same work in substantially the same way, and

accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, even though

they differ in name, form or shape.

– though this must be shown on all elements of a claim, with differences

being insubstantial to one of ordinary skill in the art. We think that RVMD

faces an uphill battle with their doctrine of equivalents claim, the most

consequential of their three arguments. While the doctrine was "near

death" (according to Lemley and Allison, Stanford Law Review 2007), which