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.
The judicial-made doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is intended to prevent patent system gamesmanship such that applicants cannot obtain an unjustified extension.
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.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure.
Advertisement
Whether Obviousness Type Double Patenting Can Be Used to Invalidate Patents That Expire Later Because of Patent Term Adjustment Monday, July 12, 2021
We write to advise you on an issue currently before the Federal Circuit in a case of first impression, namely whether a later-filed, earlier-expiring patent can be used as a reference for obvious-type double patenting (OTDP) to invalidate a patent that was filed earlier but expires later because of a patent-term adjustment (PTA).
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 21-1876 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Below is a visual example of this situation:
Magna Elecs., Inc. v. TRW Auto. Holdings Corp., 2015 WL 11430786, at 2 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2015). The question is whether the 786 patent can serve as a reference to invalidate the PTA-adjusted 149 patent. While the