On May 28, a group of five former Directors, Deputy Directors and Patent Commissioners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent a letter addressed to current USPTO Director Kathi Vidal in opposition to a rule package on terminal disclaimer practice proposed earlier this month.
On August 28, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In re: Cellect, LLC. Among other things, the Court determined that when a patent's.
Americans spend on average about $1,300 per person per year on prescription drugs, which represents only about 13.3% of the total paid-for drugs in the US. Private insurers, Medicare,.
In a letter dated June 8, 2022 to Kathi Vidal, director of the USPTO, a group of senators led by Patrick Leahy voiced concern over filings of multiple continuation applications, which,.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is one of the most complicated and most confounding aspects of U.S. patent law. Although a Terminal Disclaimer can overcome most obviousness-type double patenting rejections, Terminal Disclaimers are not permitted in all circumstances where obviousness-type double patenting may arise. In a Federal Register Notice dated December 30, 2020, the USPTO published proposed rule changes that would close one gap in Terminal Disclaimer practice related to inventions made pursuant to joint research agreements.
Terminal Disclaimer Practice
Obviousness-type double patenting may arise when a later-expiring patent/application claims subject matter that is deemed to be an obvious variation of subject matter claimed in an earlier-expiring patent/application with the same or overlapping inventorship or ownership. To avoid an “unjust timewise extension of the right to exclude” and “th