Category Archives: Double Patenting

In Re Hitachi Metals, Ltd.

Docket No. 2014-1689 PROST, PLAGER, WALLACH March 17, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that later-filed patent was invalid for double-patenting affirmed since “consisting essentially of” language (i.e., “can include those additional elements which do not materially affect the basic … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Abbvie Inc. et al. v. The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust (“Kennedy”)

Docket No. 2013-1545 DYK, WALLACH, CHEN August 21, 2014 Brief Summary: Post-URAA patents susceptible to obviousness-type double patenting challenge where there is overlapping subject matter and, for instance, extended term due to PTO delays and/or applicant’s choice of different priority … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Natco Pharma Limited et al.

Docket No. 2013-1418 RADER (D), PROST, CHEN April 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Earlier filed (earlier expiring) / later issued patent may serve as obviousness-type double patenting reference for later filed (later expiring) / earlier issued patent (URAA patents). Dissent argued … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Promega Corporation v. Applied Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies Corporation, and California Institute of Technology

Docket No. 2013-1454 PROST, MAYER, CHEN March 10, 2014 Non-precedential (Rule 36 judgment) Brief Summary: DC determination of invalidity affirmed (anticipated as earlier patent not filed “by another”; no 103(c) safe harbor as no evidence of “team research” presented). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Assignment / Ownership, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al. v. Access Closure, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1452 LOURIE(C), PLAGER, WALLACH September 11, 2013 Brief summary: DC conclusion of no double-patenting reversed and its obviousness findings affirmed due to “logical chasm” between claimed invention and combination of references. Summary: ACI appealed DC ruling that the … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Jeffrey Hubbell, et al.

Docket No. 2011-1547 (Serial No. 10/650,509) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH March 7, 2013 Brief summary: Board decision regarding double-patenting rejection of Hubbell’s claims was affirmed. Summary: Hubbell’s claims (Ser. No. 10/650,509) related to peptide-protein matrices for tissue repair and regeneration were … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment