Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Double Patenting
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In view of the unprecedented uncertainty in patent law generated by counter-doctrinal Supreme Court decisions over the past decade or so and a cowed Federal Circuit relegated to complaining that their hands are tied on most matters (even when acknowledging that the decisions they are rendering do violence to the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit decided a question left open during a recent spate of opinions involving the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP): the effect patent term adjustment (PTA) can (or should) have on creating circumstances where ODP will operate to find a patent invalid in the absence of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit soon will have the opportunity to decide a question left open during a recent spate of opinions involving the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP): the effect patent term adjustment (PTA) can (or should) have on creating circumstances where OTDP will operate to find a patent…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In a terse, non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment that Defendants Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Indoco Remedies Ltd. had failed to prove that the claims asserted by Plaintiff/patentee Takeda were obvious, either under the statute or the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, in Takeda Pharmaceutical…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common ownership in applying the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), in Immunex Corp.…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,853,156 to be directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and remanded for…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Friday, December 7th, the Federal Circuit handed down two opinions concerning the proper application of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). The first, Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), set forth the narrow, albeit important, holding that a terminal disclaimer, or loss of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed a narrow but important question regarding its jurisprudence on the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (OTPD). That question was whether its decision in Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., which established that a first patent filed earlier than…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 as being unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Janssen Biotech, Inc. and New York University ("Janssen"), co-assignees of the '471 patent,…
Patent Docs 