An interesting case which revolved around the interplay between differing patent terms, patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. §156, and obviousness-type double patenting was decided on December 7, 2018, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals Inc.,[1] by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Patent term has changed based on acts of Congress. …
Category: double patenting
Fed Circuit Watch: Gaming of Patent System Cannot Save Patent from Invalidation on Double Patenting Grounds
On January 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down In re Janssen Biotech, Inc.,[1] which dealt with the specific issue of the double patenting safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. §121.[2] This case is an example of playing games with the patent prosecution system in order to better position …