In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced changes to patent fees, which will take effect on Jan 19, 2025. Most current fees are subject to a 7.5% across-the-board increase while other fees are...more
The USPTO has published its final rule setting patent fees that will take effect January 19, 2025. The final rule steps back from some of the new fee structures proposed in April 2024, but still could have a significant...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark, finding that an unchallenged, detailed declaration by the opposing company’s director sufficed as...more
On April 30, the USPTO announced a Request for Comments (RFC) seeking public feedback on how AI could affect USPTO evaluations on patentability, including what qualifies as prior art and the assessment of the level of...more
The Federal Circuit denied Cellect, LLC's petition for rehearing en banc of the In re Cellect case, which held that the expiration of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes is the expiration date...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Cellect confirmed that, when considering whether a reference patent invalidates for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) a patent having a term...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - VOLVO PENTA v. BRUNSWICK CORP. [OPINION] (2022-1765, 8/24/2023) (Moore, Lourie, and Cunningham) - Moore, Chief J. The Court vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more
In In re Cellect, the Federal Circuit effectively held that Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded under 35 USC § 154 is not protected from obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) in view of a patent with the same 20-year...more
IN RE CELLECT, LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the...more
The coronavirus global pandemic has ushered in extraordinary roadblocks for the pharmaceutical industry. To help you carve out a path forward, in-house senior executives and industry leaders will convene virtually at ACI’s...more
In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed “the interplay between a patent term extension (PTE) granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156 and the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine.” In upholding the...more