Home » Patents » US Patent Developments: Double patenting at the CAFC and the rise of the PTAB

US Patent Developments: Double patenting at the CAFC and the rise of the PTAB

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

photo-3rAn update on developments in the US was provided during the Finnegan “A Year in Review” seminar. Anthony Tridico noted that there are now “Three Kings” in the US: the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Anthony noted that the PTAB has become the number 1 most active jurisdiction in the US after only two years of operation.

First up however was the Federal Circuit and a case relating to double patenting.

Double Patenting

Double patenting objections in the US exist to prevent the unjustified time extension of patent rights for the same invention (not such an issue now with 20 year patent terms in the US) and to prevent the public being harassed by the owners of patent rights that are virtually identical. Objections in the US can either be statutory objections for the “same invention” or obviousness type objections.

The case discussed in this section of the talk was Gilean Scis. Inc v. Natco Pharma Ltd, No. 2013-1418 (Fed Cir. 2014) in which Gilead obtained two patents, the ‘375 patent and the ‘483 patent.

In this case the ‘375 case was filed first but granted second compared to the ‘483 patent (in other words the filing, prosecution and grant of the ‘483 patent all took place during the prosecution of the ‘375 case). Gilead filed a terminal disclaimer on the ‘375 patent based on the ‘483 patent. The two patents had the same inventors but did not claim a common priority.

Reversing a decision from the District Court the Federal Circuit (in a split decision) said that the terminal disclaimer needed to be filed on both patents. The decision meant that the events that occurred in later prosecution impacted the earlier granted patent.

Having to file terminal disclaimers in two directions could impact the patent term of an earlier granted case. In the case of Gilead the earlier granted case was actually the later filed case and the patent term was affected.

Anthony suggested that this Federal Circuit decision could have significant impact in pharma cases where valuable patent term for a blockbuster drug could be restricted.

The key take-aways from this section of the talk were that all co-owned patents are potentially vulnerable to obviousness-type double patenting and the disclosure of speculative uses should be avoided to avoid such objections.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

In just over two years of operation the PTAB has seen over 2500 cases. Over three quarters of the petitions relate to the computer and business method areas.

There is a hurdle in getting a case to be considered but around 70% of all cases filed have been taken on by PTAB.

According to Finnegan research, as of 1 Feb 2015 there had been 196 final written decisions. Of these 196 decisions only two patents had been amended, 13% of the patents survived entirely and a whopping 70% were completely taken out.

Mark Richardson 12 March 2014


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: