![Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents](assets/images-t1724789718/2485.png)
In the case of Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) concerning claim 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356 (the '356 patent). This patent was challenged based on the assertion that it was invalid due to ODP over two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,344,011 (the '011 patent) and 8,609,709 (the '709 patent). The district court initially ruled in favor of invalidity, determining that because the '356 patent expired after the '011 and '709 patents—despite sharing a common priority date—it violated the principles of ODP.
The Federal Circuit began its analysis by examining the historical context of ODP. The doctrine is designed to prevent inventors from unjustly extending the exclusivity of their patents by obtaining additional patents for inventions that are not sufficiently distinct from those already patented. Traditionally, ODP assessments relied heavily on the filing and issuance dates of the patents in question. However, the 1995 changes under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) altered this landscape by shifting the measurement of patent terms from issuance dates to filing dates, thereby complicating how ODP should be applied, especially in cases involving patent term adjustments (PTAs).
At the district court level, the decision was influenced by the precedent set in In re Cellect, where the Federal Circuit ruled that ODP should be evaluated based on the expiration dates of patents, particularly when one patent's term has been extended by a PTA. In this case, because the '356 patent had received a PTA that extended its expiration beyond that of the '011 and '709 patents, the district court found that it was invalid under the ODP doctrine. The court reasoned that the '356 patent's later expiration date improperly extended the period of exclusivity for the same invention covered by the earlier-expiring patents.
However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, providing a crucial clarification. The appellate court emphasized that the '356 patent was both the first-filed and first-issued patent in its family, specifically covering the core invention of eluxadoline. Given its status as the first granted patent in this family, the Federal Circuit held that it could not be invalidated for ODP based on later-filed, later-issued patents, even if those later patents had earlier expiration dates due to a lack of PTA. The court underscored that ODP should not be used to invalidate a patent where the patentee is not attempting to improperly extend the term of the later invention but is instead receiving the full term for the original invention as legally adjusted by the PTA.
In its analysis, the Federal Circuit also considered the precedents set by Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. and In re Cellect. In Gilead, the court had held that a later-issued, earlier-expiring patent could serve as an ODP reference against an earlier-issued, later-expiring patent. However, the Federal Circuit distinguished this case, noting that the principle applied differently here because the '356 patent was the first in time and had received a PTA due to delays in its prosecution. Similarly, while the Cellect case emphasized the importance of expiration dates post-PTA, the Federal Circuit clarified that Cellect did not control the outcome in a situation where the challenged patent was the first-filed and first-issued in its family.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit concluded that claim 40 of the '356 patent was not invalid for ODP over the '011 and '709 patents. The court determined that the '356 patent did not unjustifiably extend the term of exclusivity for the eluxadoline invention and that applying ODP in this manner would have undermined the legitimate benefits of PTAs as intended by Congress. This decision underscores the Federal Circuit's stance that while ODP remains a critical doctrine to prevent patent term extension through non-distinct patents, it must be applied with an understanding of the legislative intent behind patent term adjustments and the timing of patent filings and issuances.
- Shareholder
Brandon is a technology-first patent attorney with extensive experience in the complete patent lifecycle, from prosecution before the US Patent and Trademark Office through monetization and post grant challenges. As an inventor ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
- Federal Circuit’s New Test For Design Patent Obviousness Will Change Everything
- Why You Need An AI Policy Now To Protect Your Organization Against IP Infringement Claims
- Trademark Basics and How to Spot Potential Issues for In-House Counsel
- My Co-inventor Never Sleeps
- Strategies for Conditional Claiming in Method Claims: Finding the Patentable Weight
- You’re not my Pal, World
- A Court Cannot Balance That Which It Does Not Weigh
Archives
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017