Source: http://www.stlr.org/2014/03/a-not-so-obvious-threat-to-pharmaceutical-patent-portfolios/
Timestamp: 2014-07-24 14:45:33
Document Index: 603526666

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 804', '§ 101', '§ 311', '§ 42', '§ 321']

By Michael Flibbert, Elizabeth Laughton, and Jonathan R.K. Stroud on March 13th, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION
“Innovation Act of 2013,” H.R. 3309. [↩]December 5, 2013. [↩]“Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013,” pending in the Senate. [↩]35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012). [↩]Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (C.C.P.A. 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467 (CCPA 1957); see also MPEP § 804 II. (A) (“‘Same invention’ means identical subject matter.”). [↩]Obviousness-type double patenting roots in 35 U.S.C. § 101, which prohibits patenting of the same invention twice, but was created by judges. See Ex parte Davis, No. 1999-1924, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1434, 1435 (BPAI May 1, 2000); In re Zickendraht, 319 F. 2d 225, 232, 138 USPQ 22, 27 (CCPA 1963) (Rich, J., concurring) (“The public should . . . be able to act on the assumption that upon the expiration of the patent it will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but also any modifications or variants thereof which would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account the skill of the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued patent.”). [↩]See In re Braat, 937 F. 2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) arises from judge-made law). [↩]Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F. 3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). [↩]In re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litig., 494 F. 3d 1011, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“By contrast, in this case, the composition of the earlier patent claim includes the compound of the later patent claim in its entirety. Specifically, the earlier patent not only discloses but also claims a composition comprised-in-part of metoprolol succinate.”). [↩]Section 9(c)(1). [↩]To date, two IPR petitioners have nonetheless attempted to raise ODP. See Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Number 6,306,141 Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 at 3, Lombard Med. Techs. PLC v. Medtronic, Inc., IPR2013-00269 (P.T.A.B. May 6, 2013), available at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00269/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6306141/05-06-2013-PET-358/Petition-1-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_of_USPN_6,306,141/ (raising ODP; the parties eventually reached a settlement). [↩]See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301 (2012). [↩]35 U.S.C. § 321(b) (2012) (i.e., relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim). [↩]See, e.g., CRS Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., CBM2012-00005, Paper 1 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2013) (petition granted, all claims asserted cancelled). [↩]	Categories: Patents
Michael Flibbert, Elizabeth Laughton, and Jonathan R.K. Stroud
Mike Flibbert is a Partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Finnegan). He leads Finnegan’s chemical and metallurgical practice group, and has extensive experience in all aspects of patent law, focusing on district court litigation and appeals. After serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan D. Lourie at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, he has devoted the last 17 years to litigating patent cases. Mr. Flibbert has successfully represented clients in patent disputes before federal district courts and the Federal Circuit involving a broad range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, chemistry, chemical engineering, agriculture, and materials science. He has particular experience in representing pharmaceutical patent holders in litigations arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act. He also serves as lead counsel in inter partes review (IPR) and other contested proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Elizabeth Laughton is an Associate at Finnegan. She litigates patent disputes involving a variety of technologies, including software applications, steels, and pharmaceuticals. She has litigated patent matters before the federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She also prepares and prosecutes patent applications in the fields of biotechnology and business methods. Prior to joining Finnegan, she served as a law clerk to Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jonathan R.K. Stroud is an Associate at Finnegan. He litigates and counsels on patent and trade secret disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTAB), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Mr. Stroud works closely with clients ranging from start-ups to large multinational companies, and on diverse technologies such as pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, medical devices, software, business methods, and consumer products. He has drafted four post-grant petitions, and been involved in dozens of IPR and CBM trials, on both the patent owner and the petitioner side. He hosts an annual Patent Administrative Law Symposium at American University Washington College of Law, and speaks and writes on emerging issues in intellectual property law.	blog comments powered by Disqus
« Freeing the Market in Silicon Valley
Cy Pres Remedies in the Internet Privacy Class Action Context »