Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Office's decision to reject claims in four separate reexamination cases due to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 22-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023). This decision is important because it expands ODP, a doctrine judges developed long ago, when patents received a term of 17 years from the date of issue, rather than 20 years from the date of filing. Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, this decision will significantly affect patent families that have patents with different expiration dates. This article explains some of the decision's consequences and explores potential patent prosecution strategies.
What transpired in Cellect was not entirely surprising after the court's 2014 decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In that case, Gilead Sciences sequentially filed separate patent applications, leading to patents with different expiration dates, claiming inventions that were obvious variants of each other. The relevant facts are illustrated below.
|
On these facts, the Federal Circuit concluded that the earlier-expiring '375 patent can serve as an ODP reference against the family-unrelated and later-expiring '483 patent, despite the '375 patent being issued after the '483 patent. The Federal Circuit explained that it's the expiration dates, not the issue dates, that dictate whether ODP may apply. Id. at 1215. Through that explanation, Gilead Sciences introduced new law.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.