1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Obviousness-Type Double Patenting The Pitfalls Heather Champion Brady IP Practice.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Advertisements

FITF Overview and Tips on Responding to Prior Art Rejections Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting United States Patent and.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
Patent Strategy Under the AIA Washington in the West January 29, 2013.
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
Julie Burke TC1600 QAS REJOINDER PRACTICE Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
Patent Law A Career Choice For Engineers Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25, 2008 Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25,
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
Introduction to the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 CREATE Act Prepared by Office of Sponsored Programs & Research Administration.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association CURRENT TRENDS/EFFECTS OF AIA on US Patent Practice at the US Patent.
Greg H. Gardella Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Tactics AIPLA 2010 Winter Institute.
Safekeeping of 35 U.S.C. 156 Extensions
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 12, 2007 Patent - Subject Matter.
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Professor Fischer Class 1: Introduction August 20, 2009.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Hamilton Beach Brands v. Sunbeam Products: Lessons Learned Naomi Abe Voegtli IP Practice.
Protecting Your Ideas and Inventions: Patents, Trademarks, Servicemarks and Copyrights.
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
December 8, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818)(upon enactment) and 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS CASE WHAT IT MEANS WHAT IT DOESN’T MEAN George William Lewis.
Public Policy Considerations and Patent Eligible Subject Matter Relating to Diagnostic Inventions Disclaimer: Any views expressed here are offered in order.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making Affecting Claims That Recite Alternatives 1 Robert Clarke, Director Office of Patent Legal Administration (571)
Intellectual Property. John Ayers February 25, 2005.
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department.
Preparing a Provisional Patent Application Hay Yeung Cheung, Ph.D. Myers Wolin, LLC March 16, 2013 Trenton Computer Festival 1.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Chapter 08.  Describes property that is developed through an intellectual and creative process  Inventions, writings, trademarks that are a business’s.
Safe Harbor or Not: Application of 271(e)(1) to Pioneering Drug Discovery Activities Susan Steele October 21, 2003.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association PTAB Update: IPR & CBM Sponsored by the Japan Patent Office Ron Harris, The Harris Firm.
Revisions to Japanese Patent Law Before the law was revised, a Divisional Applications could not be filed after a Notice of Allowance 2.
FY09 Restriction Petition Update; Comparison of US and National Stage Restriction Practice Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association U.S. Implementation of the Hague Agreement For Designs John (Jack) J. Penny, V Event.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Inequitable Conduct: Update Mark Guetlich AIPLA Mid-Winter JP Practice Committee Orlando.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
James Toupin – General Counsel February 1, Summary of Proposed Rule Changes to Continuations, Double Patenting, and Claims.
Anthony Caputa Quality Lead OPQA
Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC US Design Patents Overview.
Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC
Andrew B. Freistein Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. Learning the ABC’s of Patent Term Adjustment 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE STATUS OF INDUCEMENT Japan Intellectual Property Association Tokyo Joseph A. Calvaruso.
1 1 AIPLA 1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Post-Grant Procedures and Effective Use of Reissue AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.
The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)
1 FY08 Restriction Petition Update and Burden Julie Burke Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
LYDON - TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS1 Terminal Disclaimer (TD) A Terminal Disclaimer states that the patent –will expire on the same date as a related.
BLW 360 – January 27, 2015 Jonathan LA Phillips
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
BARASH LAW LLC Case Competition Eyal H. Barash BARASH LAW LLC January 29, 2016
Current Situation of JP Patent based on Statistics (from view point of attacking pending and granted patents) Nobuo Sekine Japan Patent Attorneys Association.
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Technology Transfer Office
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Intellectual Property, Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, and Franchising
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CYBER PIRACY
Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
Chapter 4: Patents and Trade Secrets in the Information Age.
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Presentation transcript:

1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Obviousness-Type Double Patenting The Pitfalls Heather Champion Brady IP Practice in Japan Pre-Meeting Washington, D.C. October 22, 2014

2 2 2 AIPLA Firm Logo Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the presenter and are in no way endorsed by Johnson & Johnson.

3 3 3 AIPLA Firm Logo Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (“OTDP”) A rejection “based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy and which is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinguishing from claims in a first patent.” MPEP §804

4 4 4 AIPLA Firm Logo Requirements for OTDP Rejection Link between the cited patent/application and the patent/application at issue –Common inventor –Common owner –Joint Research Agreement Subject matter claimed in the patent/application at issue obvious in view of subject matter claimed in the cited patent/application Subject matter pursued in patent/application at issue cannot be the result of a Restriction Requirement

5 5 5 AIPLA Firm Logo Overcoming an OTDP Rejection Demonstrate that the claimed subject matter is patentably distinct Submit a Terminal Disclaimer –Cuts off PTA awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 154 –Does not cut off patent term extension granted under 35 U.S.C. § 156 (for regulatory approval of drug)

6 6 6 AIPLA Firm Logo OTDP Analysis Claim construction –Construe claims in patent/application at issue –Construe claims in the cited patent/application –Determine the differences Do the differences render the claims at issue patently distinct? –Analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103 (Abbvie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute (Fed. Cir. 2014))

7 7 7 AIPLA Firm Logo OTDP Scenarios Genus/Species –Later filed genus claims likely subject to an OTDP rejection over granted species claims –If later filed species claims are patentably distinct (unexpected results?) from earlier genus claims, OTDP rejection may be avoidable Method/Product –Later filed product/composition claims likely subject to an OTDP rejection over granted method of making/using product/composition claims –Method of using a compound/composition claims may be patentably distinct from earlier claims to the compound/composition

8 8 8 AIPLA Firm Logo Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2014) Question considered by the Federal Circuit: Can a patent that issues after but expires before another patent qualify as a double patenting reference for that other patent? The answer: Yes, it can “[A]n earlier-expiring patent can qualify as an obviousness-type double patenting reference for a later-expiring patent”

9 9 9 AIPLA Firm Logo Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2014)

10 10 AIPLA Firm Logo Abbvie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute (Fed. Cir. 2014) “[T]he doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting continues to apply where two patents that claim the same invention have different expiration dates” “While often described as a court-created doctrine, obviousness-type double patenting is grounded in the text of the Patent Act.... § 101 forbids an individual from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention, i.e., double patenting. As this court has explained, “a rejection based upon double patenting of the obviousness type” is “grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the patent statute).”

11 11 AIPLA Firm Logo Questions to Consider After Gilead & Abbvie File Terminal Disclaimer before related patent issues? Review portfolio when a new patent grants? Raise OTDP in Ex Parte Reexamination? Raise OTDP in PGR?

12 12 AIPLA Firm Logo Avoiding/Overcoming OTDP Scenarios Claim entire invention together Use specification to advantage Are the claims really obvious? Consonance of applications When can a terminal disclaimer be filed? Provisional OTDP rejections … know the Patent Office Policy

13 13 AIPLA Firm Logo Thanks for your attention! Questions? Heather Champion Brady Senior Patent Counsel Johnson & Johnson 1 Johnson & Johnson Plaza New Brunswick, NJ (office) (mobile) Heather Champion Brady