Category: Double Patenting

  • By Kevin E. Noonan — Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. As in the earlier appeals, the injunction was based on infringement by Celltrion's EYLEA biosimilar (designated…

  • Note: This post addresses two Federal Circuit decisions issued on January 29, 2025.  Both appeals involved Plaintiff-Appellee Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the first appeal involving Defendant-Appellant Formycon AG (Case 24-2009) and the second appeal involving Defendant-Appellant Samsung Bioepsis Co. (Case 24-1965).  At trial, each case also included Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Amgen USA, Inc., Biocon…

  • The Supreme Court issued an order this morning denying certiorari in Cellect, LLC v. Vidal.  A review of the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect decision can be found here and here.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan — In view of the Supreme Court's "long conference" on September 30th, it seems timely to review the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect decision.  While that Court's recent Allergan USA Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. opinion…

  • By Kevin E. Noonan — In view of the Supreme Court's "long conference" on September 30th, it seems timely to review the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect decision.  While that Court's recent Allergan USA Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. opinion…

  • By Andrew Velzen and Joshua Rich — As discussed previously on this blog (see "USPTO Proposed Rule Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice" and "The USPTO's Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule: A Litigator's Perspective") and elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has announced a proposed rule change to the required form for terminal disclaimers in an…

  • By Joshua Rich — As discussed at length in a previous post on this blog (see "USPTO Proposed Rule Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice"), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has proposed amending the form of terminal disclaimer to be used by patent applicants.  Specifically, it proposes requiring terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory (or…

  • By Andrew Velzen — On May 10, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a proposed rule change to terminal disclaimer practice.[1]  Unfortunately, the proposed change appears to further weaken issued patents in which terminal disclaimers have been filed and make obtaining robust patent protection more difficult and uncertain in the future. Present Nonstatutory…

  • By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit's In re Cellect decision has caused a great deal of commentary and proposals to avoid its consequences, including changing prosecution strategies and filing prospective, precautionary terminal disclaimers (see "Overcoming the Consequences of In re Cellect") to reimbue predictability regarding patent term to patent portfolio prosecution (as well as there…

  • By Kevin E. Noonan – In the shadow of its recent, precedent-challenging In re Cellect decision, the Federal Circuit illustrated the pedestrian application of its obviousness-type double patenting jurisprudence in affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection on ODP grounds in In re Institut Pasteur. The case arose in an appeal during ex parte prosecution of…