In Re Cellect – ODP Defense Does Not Impact The Expiration Date of A Patent With Both PTA and PTE In The Absence of A Terminal Disclaimer

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
September 15, 2023

The Federal Circuit in In re Cellect, Appeals Nos. 2022-1293, 2022-1294, 2022-1295, 2022-1296 held that the earliest patent to expire in a series of patents subject to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) controls, i.e., the PTA in the later to expire patents is lost and all patents are invalid for double patenting. In Cellect the relation between the patents is shown below:

<... Read more

Federal Circuit Reiterates What Constitutes A Motivation to Combine, A Reasonable Expectation of Success, and Unexpected Results in New Chemical Compounds

Attorney: Sara Pistilli, PharmD.
August 30, 2023

In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, on August 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Final Written Decision of the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (the Board) of an inter partes review (IPR) asserting the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,249,149 (the ’149 patent) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The central argument was whether Sun’s “octo-deuterated” ruxolitinib analog (CTP-543) and “tetra-deuterated” ruxolitinib analogs, arising from claim 7 of the ’149 patent, were obvious in light of the prior art references presented by Incyte (Rodgers, Shilling, and the Concert Backgrounder).

Claim 7 recited:

The compound of claim 1, in which the compound is selected from the group consisting of:




or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any of the foregoing.<... Read more

American Axle Part 2 – Not an Abstract Idea

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
August 4, 2023

On July 28, 2023, Judge Williams of the Delaware District unsealed his decision on remand from the Federal Circuit addressing competing summary judgment motions regarding the patent eligibility of remanded claim 1. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine if claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea argued by Neapco on appeal for invalidity.  Claim 1 provided:<... Read more

No Motivation to Modify Product-Specific Method with Method Features for Different Products

Attorney: Derek Lightner, Ph.D.
July 14, 2023

On July 10, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed an examiner’s finding of obvious on the basis of a failure to show a motivation to modify the prior art and a lack of a reasonable expectation of success. The appeal (No. 2023-002080, USSN 15/558,153, Technology Center 1700) of Ex parte MARK HETHERINGTON began with the filing of a Notice of Appeal on May 13, 2022, after filing the national stage application on September 13, 2017. The main appealed claim recited:<... Read more

Lessons from Amgen v. Sanofi

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
July 5, 2023

Amgen provides a window on the Supreme Court approach to patent issues - look to history and established policy as our patent law is not code based but rather common law based. The Court noted that the “enablement requirement” is found essentially unchanged in every version of the patent law since 1790. While Amgen concerned the enablement provision, the same approach applies to patent eligibility, the “judicial exceptions,” which have existed in our case law since the early 19^th century.  In deciding Amgen the Supreme Court did not consider previous Federal Circuit decisions but looked to history of the enablement provision which involved Court decisions from the 19^th and early 20^th century.  While Amgen was the Court’s first antibody case, it found analogous cases which provided guidance as to how the enablement requirement had been interpreted.  Since U.S. patent law is based on common law, this is the appropriate approach to provide the needed predictability.  Without understanding the policy behind the exceptions, one will continue to wander aimlessly from one case to the next.<... Read more