Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Safeguarding Patent Ownership Now and Facilitating the Success of Future Patent Applications

May 16, 2019 11:45am

Melodie Henderson
VP Intellectual Property
Sigilon Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA)

Forrester Liddle
Senior Director of Intellectual Property
Jounce Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA)

Jason Schigelone
Shareholder
Brinks Gilson & Lione

Mary Till
Senior Legal Advisor
United States Patent and Trademark Office (Alexandria, VA)

Patent Applications
  • Review of recent Federal Circuit cases related to obviousness-type double patenting
  • Examining when a terminal disclaimer can be utilised to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting rejection
  • Analyzing the expectations and interpretations of the patent examiners relative to the rules of obviousness-type double patenting
  • Developing strategies avoid and overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejections in a collaboration setting
Patent Protection
  • Analyzing key point from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018):
    • Discover whether the order of patent filing can make a difference relating to obviousness-type double patenting?
    • What happens if the later-expiring patent expires later that initial patent timeline because of a Patent Term Extension (PTE) awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 156
    • Clarifying the position of when are patents enforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 156 in an obviousness-type double patenting case
    • Defining the actual expiring timeline for an obviousness-type double patent with patent term extension (PTE) awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 156