Federal Circuit Decision Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustments In 'Allergan v. MSN Laboratories'
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling that reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re: Cellect to invalidate a claim in an earlier-filed parent application over admittedly patentably indistinct claims in later-filed (and earlier-expired) child patents. This decision has resolved some substantial questions about the application of obviousness-type double patenting that had been raised by last year's In re Cellect decision.
September 16, 2024 at 10:14 AM
7 minute read
Patent Litigation
What You Need to Know
- Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created rule that, in the absence of a terminal disclaimer, prevents the same inventor from obtaining multiple patents for a single invention.
- In many ways, Allergan confirms that ODP typically applies to later-filed and later-issued patent applications, and not the other way around.
- A careful review of current practices should be conducted to confirm whether terminal disclaimers are necessary, or whether ODP may be properly raised as a basis of invalidity for any particular patent.
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Allergan USA Inc. et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. et al., Case Number 24-1061, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This decision reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re: Cellect LLC to invalidate a claim in an earlier-filed parent application over admittedly patentably indistinct claims in later-filed (and earlier-expired) child patents. This decision has resolved some substantial questions about the application of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) that had been raised by last year's In re Cellect decision.
|Case Background
Allergan, Janssen, and Eden Biodesigns (collectively, Allergan) asserted patent infringement against Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries (Sun) after Sun filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market and sell a generic version of Allergan's bowel treatment drug, Viberzi.
Following a three-day bench trial focusing on the Viberzi patents, the district court held that the asserted claim in parent patent 7,741,356 (the '356 Patent) was invalid for ODP over claims of two later-filed child patents. ODP is a judicially created rule that, in the absence of a terminal disclaimer, prevents the same inventor from obtaining multiple patents for a single invention. See, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 804. The doctrine's primary goal is to prevent an unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the life of a patent. (Opinion at 11.)
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Am Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
How Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Federal Judge Approves Agreement to Remove Knockoff Product From E-Commerce Platforms
Trending Stories
- 1When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 4Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
