New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Takeaways: 1. ODP in reexamination and reissue remains unpredictable despite Allergan 2. Patent Owners should carefully review ODP rejections to ensure they are proper Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a legal...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit surprised many observers of patent law in In re Cellect LLC, 81 F.4th 1216, 1228–29 (Fed. Cir. 2023) when—for the first time—it affirmed a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office decision cancelling an...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
In August 2023, the Federal Circuit in In re Cellect held that in evaluating unpatentability for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) of a patent that has received patent term adjustment (PTA), the relevant date is the...more
On January 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the much awaited In re Cellect matter. The mandate of the court issued today....more
On January 18, 2024, the USPTO rejected a "contingent" terminal disclaimer filed by Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Acadia) for a patent it owns that is being challenged in a pending litigation as invalid for obviousness-type...more
Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., Novartis scored another obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) win when the Federal Circuit held that a post-URAA child patent could not be cited as an...more
At a symposium and webinar presented by Fenwick & West and Mewburn Ellis, we asked U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and European Patent Office examiners to provide perspective on the preparation and prosecution of patent...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review styled Mylan Pharm. v. AstraZeneca AB affirming the patentability of all challenged...more
In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions...more
The intersection of patent law, drug regulations, creative lawyering, and commerce (if not outright greed) has once again arisen in a qui tam suit brought under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 (alleging fraud against the U.S....more
Implementation of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) has brought substantial changes to the patent law of the United States over the last several years. One of the most significant provisions of the AIA was the creation of inter...more
In Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Lt. v. Rae, the Federal Circuit issued a rare decision reversing an obviousness determination by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more
The Federal Circuit's jurisprudence regarding obviousness as determined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office continues its post-KSR development in Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, which involves an obviousness...more
In its third look at the Novo Nordisk A/S patent related to Prandin®, in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No....more