Derrick Carman of Robins Kaplan. Courtesy photo 'In re Cellect': How Patent Owners Can Protect Themselves From Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidity Determinations
The recent case of 'In re Cellect' serves as a warning to patent owners who rely too heavily on the USPTO to completely and accurately examine their patent applications. This article presents patent owners with several options to consider to avoid a fate similar to Cellect.
March 22, 2024 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
The recent case of In re Cellect, No. 22-1293 (Fed. Cir. 2023) serves as a warning to patent owners who rely too heavily on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to completely and accurately examine their patent applications. In Cellect, the USPTO's failure to issue an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection during prosecution, combined with a grant of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 154(b), led to the invalidation of Cellect LLC's patents. This article presents patent owners with several options to consider to avoid a fate similar to Cellect.
Background
Cellect owned a patent portfolio including a number of related child patents, all claiming priority from a single parent patent. During prosecution of the family, two notable events occurred.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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
Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Rise of the Reexam: Surging Ex Parte Reexamination Filings Expected to Increase by 40%
Redesigning Obviousness: Federal Circuit's New Test for Obviousness in Design Patents
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Feb. 6, 2025—Unruh Turner, Fox Rothschild
- 2‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 3Gertrude Stein Is Right On Again
- 4Georgia's Next Judge? Sole Candidate Shortlisted to Rise to Bench
- 5The End of Innocence? DEP’s End Run Around ‘All Appropriate Inquiry’ Spill Act Protections
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
