News & Analysis as of

OTDP Patent Litigation

Cozen O'Connor

OTDP After PTA: What You Need to Know

Cozen O'Connor on

The Federal Circuit just rendered a decision In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023), which raises potential validity issues where multiple patents by the same Applicant have...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium - September 21st - 22nd, Chicago, IL

ACI’s 8th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium returns in person to Chicago on September 21-22! Join leading pharmaceutical patent litigators for brand name and generic drug companies to receive up-to-the-minute...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Patent Owners Win as Federal Circuit Reins in Gilead and AbbVie Double Patenting Rulings

Fenwick & West LLP on

In a pair of patent owner victories, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions limiting the applicability of obviousness-type double patenting — known as OTDP — to invalidate or limit the term of...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Says No OTDP Between Novartis Patents That Straddle URAA

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

BakerHostetler

Requirements of § 121’s Safe Harbor: Ensuring That Divisional Applications Will Be Protected Against OTDP Rejections

BakerHostetler on

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) narrowly construed the so-called safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121, affirming the examiner’s rejection of a patent application under the doctrine of...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Patent Term Adjustment Versus Double Patenting

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Magna Electronics, Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., No. 1:12-cv-654; 1:13-cv-324 (Dec. 10, 2015), Judge Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted TRW’s motion for partial summary...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Obviousness Versus Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Prometheus’ claims were invalid as obvious, but in so doing it cited its own precedent regarding...more

McDermott Will & Emery

When a Divisional Is Not a Divisional: No Section 121 Safe Harbor for Reissue Patentee Who Retroactively Omitted New Matter - G.D....

Addressing the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. § 121, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling that a reissue patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. G.D....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Strikes Final Blow to Celebrex Patent

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In 2008, the Federal Circuit determined that claims 1-4 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,760,068 were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) over a related parent patent, in part because the ‘068 patent was filed...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

The Federal Circuit extended the scope of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) in a split decision rendered in Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. In doing so, the panel majority...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide