Thomas Kowalski – Duane Morris Life Sciences Law

August 19, 2024 by Duane Morris

Patent Primogeniture: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Immunity for First-Filed, First-Issued and Later-Expiring Patent in a Family

Recently, the relationship and intersection between obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) and any awarded Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and/or Patent Term Extension (PTE) has received significant attention. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023), that PTA and PTE, being codified in separate statutes, are treated differently for the purposes of determining the requisite expiration dates in an ODP analysis.

The Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061, 2024 WL 3763599 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024), raises the issue of when a claim can be used as a reference claim in an ODP analysis. In particular, the court addressed the question of whether “a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim [can] be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim having a common priority date”. Id. at *4.

Read the Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

October 21, 2022 by Duane Morris

Broad Patent Prosecution Bars Risk Effectively Decoupling Complementary Patent Litigation and Prosecution Practices

Parties in the discovery phase of litigation often exchange confidential documents and information, which may contain proprietary information such as the technical aspects and know-how behind a party’s intellectual property. To facilitate the exchange of confidential information and prevent its misuse by parties to the litigation, courts often use an agreed protective order, which outlines the disclosure and dissemination of confidential information, proper use of such information (e.g., prosecuting or defending the instant action) and the return of confidential information following the conclusion of litigation and any appeals taken.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

May 26, 2021 by Duane Morris

Parent Companies Can Be Liable for a Subsidiary’s Alleged Infringement Under Rule 12(b)(7)

What liability does a parent company have when a subsidiary’s actions allegedly constitute patent infringement?

That is the question answered in a recent patent infringement case, Akoloutheo, L.L.C. v. System Soft Technologies, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-985, 2021 WL 1947343 (E.D. Tx. May 14, 2021). In particular, Akoloutheo sheds light on the application of Rule 12(b)(7) in a situation where a subsidiary of the defendant parent company is the primary participant in the acts giving rise to the infringement action and could not be joined to the present infringement action. Based on the court’s determination, parent companies should not expect to escape infringement liability by pinning the blame on a subsidiary and seeking a dismissal via a 12(b)(7) motion when the subsidiary cannot be joined due to it being viewed as a joint tortfeasor and thus does not need to be joined to the present action under Rule 19. Further, the infringement statute may impute infringement liability on the parent through an inducement or contributory theory. Thus, despite the protection offered through the creation of separate corporate entities, parties should be aware that infringement liability may extend to both the parent and subsidiary under the theories of induced infringement or contributory infringement, even if the subsidiary is the primary participant in the alleged infringing acts.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

December 8, 2020 by Duane Morris

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in Biotech Should Recite More Than a “Telescope”

In Abbott Laboratories v. Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois opined as to patent-eligible subject matter in the context of a biological invention. The case presents another situation in which the law of nature and natural phenomenon judicial exceptions have come to the forefront in the analysis of patent-eligible subject matter.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

February 27, 2020 by Duane Morris

Numerical Ranges: More Than Just Endpoints in Patent Process

On February 11 and 12, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office held a series of webinars covering the interpretation of ranges during the prosecution of patent applications. The following is a brief report and summary of the covered material.

Numerical ranges provide more than just two particular endpoints for a set of data within patent applications. The interpretation of a claimed numerical range when compared with disclosed numerical ranges in the prior art, assuming the claimed invention recites the other limitations of the prior art, can form the basis for an anticipation rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or an alternative grounds rejection under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.