New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has withdrawn its controversial proposal to amend the rules on terminal disclaimers and double patenting. This decision marks a significant triumph for advocates of...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) withdrew its proposed rule that suggested major changes to its terminal disclaimer practice. 89 Fed. Reg. 96152 (Dec. 4, 2024)....more
On December 4, 2024, nearly seven months after issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed major and controversial changes to terminal disclaimer practice, which we previously discussed in an earlier blog post, the...more
In a highly anticipated decision in Allergan v. MSN Labs., the Federal Circuit held yesterday that claims in a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring patent cannot be invalidated for double patenting by claims in a...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) periodically evaluates the delicate balance of the U.S. patent system to protect innovation without excessively stifling competition. U.S. patents give patent owners the...more
On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, if enacted, would tie the enforceability of every claim of a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer to the...more
On May 10, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released proposed amendments to the rules of practice to add a new requirement for terminal disclaimers filed to prevent non-statutory double patenting....more
In the Notice, the USPTO proposed adding a new requirement for acceptable terminal disclaimers to obviate nonstatutory double patenting. The stated goal for this rule change is “to promote competition by lowering the cost of...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is facing vigorous backlash to its proposal to change terminal disclaimer practice used in patent applications and, not so subtly, discourage the use of continuation...more
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...more
On 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have...more
On Friday, May 10, 2024, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register directed at amending the rules of practice to add a requirement for terminal disclaimers filed to overcome rejections for...more
On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that could dramatically impact prosecution practices, especially for those...more
On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to add a new requirement for terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting rejections to the...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently proposed a new rule for filing terminal disclaimers to overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejections. If adopted, the rule will likely spur patent applicants to...more
The USPTO on May 10, 2024, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) raising the requirements for accepting a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) to obviate obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Specifically, the newly proposed...more
On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes a rule regarding new requirements for terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory...more
On May 10, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a proposed rule change to terminal disclaimer practice.Unfortunately, the proposed change appears to further weaken issued patents in which terminal disclaimers...more
35 U.S.C. § 101 precludes a patentee from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention. Courts have extended this prohibition “to preclude a second patent on an invention which ‘would have been obvious from the...more
Though there are many similarities between U.S. and Canadian patent law, the following significant differences can affect the key decision of whether to file in Canada. 1. Grace period time limit - Sections 28.2 and...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In SimpleAir, Inc. v Google LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Summary: Filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome an...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. introduced even more confusion in an already confusing area of the law – namely obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting...more
In Magna Electronics, Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., No. 1:12-cv-654; 1:13-cv-324 (Dec. 10, 2015), Judge Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted TRW’s motion for partial summary...more