Oblon Named Number One Filer for the IAM/ktMINE US Patent Elite

December 23, 2019

Oblon has been recognized as the law firm that has worked with the most members of the US Patent Elite on patent prosecutions at the USPTO. In addition, Oblon representatives are identified to have filed the highest volume of patent applications for the US Patent Elite, according to analysis conducted using Anaqua’s AcclaimIP Analytics Software.<... Read more

The Flip Side of Reasonable Expectation of Success is Unpredictability

Attorney: Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
October 11, 2019

The Federal Circuit in a precedential opinion in Osai Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Apotex et al (Fed. Cir., October 4, 2019) reversed the USPTO's determination of obviousness in an IPR for patent claims directed to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Just reading the background of the first three or four pages of the decision, it was already apparent that the Court was not going to be affirming the PTAB's decision. Notably:... Read more

USPTO Proposed Revisions to Rules on Patent Term Adjustment

Attorney: Yuki Onoe
October 9, 2019

特許期間調整に関する米国特許庁ルールの変更が提案されました

米国の出願審査が特許庁の遅延により極端に遅れた場合、その遅れの日数分だけプラスアルファで特許期間を長くするよう調整されます。一方で、出願人が期限延長を行うなど、自ら遅れの原因を作ってしまった場合、プラスアルファで長くなった日数分から出願人の遅延分が差し引かれることになります。このような特許期間調整(Patent Term Adjustment, PTA)により特許期間が1日でも長くなるとビジネス上大きなメリットとなり得るため、PTAを自ら減らすことのないよう拒絶応答を進めることが大事です。

先週10月4日付のFederal Registerにおいて米国特許庁は、PTAの計算方法に関する特許庁ルールの変更を提案しました。これは、今年1月のSupernus Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 913 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019)の判決内容に沿ってルールを変更することを目的としています。

Supernus事件では、出願人の遅延("a failure of the applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application")によりPTAが差し引かれる際の日数の数え方が争点になりました。関係するのは37 CFR 1.704(c)(8)で、現行のルールは下記の通りです。<... Read more

Thinking Outside the (Utility Patent) Box – Don't Overlook Design Patent Protection in the Life Sciences

Attorney: Lisa M. Mandrusiak
August 30, 2019

Design patents are very different from utility patents in that design patents only protect the ornamental features of an invention. In contrast to utility patents, the design is defined in scope by the content of the drawings rather than the words of a set of claims. Further, design patents have a 15 year term, as opposed to 20 years from filing for utility patents.... Read more

Update & Reminder: Patent Term Adjustment Related to IDS Safe Harbor

Attorney: Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
July 5, 2019

On November 9, 2018, I wrote about the USPTO's release of interim procedures for patentees to request recalculation of the patent term adjustment with respect to information disclosure statements accompanied by a proper safe harbor statement under 37 CFR. 1.704(d) (https://www.lifesciencesipblog.com/?t=39&format=xml&A=18655&p=15972).... Read more

Four Decisions Designated Informative on 101: Positive Trend for Life Sciences?

Attorney: Lisa M. Mandrusiak
July 2, 2019

In January, 2019, the USPTO issued new guidance about what constitutes an abstract idea that is ineligible for protection under Section 101. Among other things, the guidance emphasized that claims otherwise reciting a judicial exception (i.e., not patentable), would be permitted if they were directed to some type of practical application. See our previous post for more details.... Read more


Category: PTAB 101

"Statutory" Obviousness-Type Double Patenting for Pharma Patents?

Attorney: Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
June 20, 2019

As all patent practitioners know, obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine to prevent the unjust extension of patent term of follow on patents that are simply obvious variants of earlier patents. The doctrine is applied during prosecution with the USPTO and can be used to challenge the validity of issued patents in contested matters. 35 USC 121 also speaks to this issue in certain circumstances.<... Read more

Cleveland Clinic - Another Black Eye for the Federal Circuit and Dissing the USPTO

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
April 3, 2019

In the April 1 Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC decision, the Federal Circuit has once again given itself a black eye in finding a new diagnostic procedure to be patent ineligible and with the same punch dissed the USPTO.... Read more

Motions to Amend: Is the PTAB's Lectrosonics Order Just of Western Digital?

Attorney: Todd W. Baker
March 11, 2019

Spring gardening season has begun and the USPTO is once again planting its Motion to Amend ("MTA") seeds. In a substantial redux of Western Digital Corporation v. Spex Technologies, IPR2018-00082,-00084, paper 13, the PTAB this past week designated paper 15 of Lectrosonics v. Zaxcom, IPR2018-01129, 01130("Lectrosonics Order") as an informative decision.... Read more

Onyx v. Cipla: Companies Beware - What Your Patent Agent Tells You May Not Be Privileged

Attorney: Jeffrey B. McIntyre
March 4, 2019

In an order last month, the Delaware district court ruled that some communications involving Onyx's patent agent were not privileged and must be produced to Cipla. The court's order highlights potential pitfalls when relying upon advice solely from patent agents.... Read more