Here, however, I/P Engine introduced scant evidence on secondary considerations. See Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that secondary considerations did "not weigh heavily in the obviousness analysis"). Indeed, the district court did not even cite to the jury's findings on secondary considerations when it concluded that the asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness.

Although the Court agrees with Dr. Lane that formulation science, as a general matter, carries some degree of unpredictability, the Federal Circuit has made clear that "obviousness cannot be avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as there was a reasonable probability of success." Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 726 F.3d 1286, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Dr. Lane's position that "any change to any component and any change to any amount of a component will have an unpredictable effect on the performance of the gel" lacks support—in the prior art, in data, in evidence introduced at trial or in legal authority—and thus does not convince the Court that any modifications over the prior art were such that a POSA would not have had a reasonable probability of success in formulating the claimed invention.