USPTO Proposes Changes To Terminal Disclaimer Practice

OM
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P

Contributor

Oblon is among the largest US law firms that exclusively practice IP law. Businesses worldwide depend on Oblon to establish, protect and leverage their IP assets. Our team of 100+ legal professionals includes some of the country’s most respected practitioners. Most attorneys hold advanced degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, biotechnology and other scientific disciplines. Oblon is headquartered within steps of the USPTO office in Alexandria, Virginia. 
On May 10, 2024, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced a proposed rule that could have significant implications for patent procedures, particularly concerning terminal disclaimers...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On May 10, 2024, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced a proposed rule that could have significant implications for patent procedures, particularly concerning terminal disclaimers used to address rejections based on non-statutory double patenting. According to the proposal, a terminal disclaimer must now include a provision stipulating that the patent will be unenforceable if it is linked directly or indirectly to another patent whose claims have been invalidated due to prior art. This new condition, if enacted, would supplement existing requirements aligning the expiration dates of disclaimed patents with referenced ones and restricting enforcement to periods of common ownership.

This proposed rule marks a substantial departure from current practice, which typically assesses claims individually, even within a single patent. It shifts the balance of influence towards challengers of patents and undermines the presumption of validity granted by statute.

For patent applicants and owners, these proposed changes present challenging decisions. Adhering to the new requirements in terminal disclaimers means accepting the risk that the enforceability of an entire patent could depend on the validity of a single claim in another patent. Consequently, applicants may be more inclined to contest double patenting rejections or seek other claim amendments instead of merely filing a disclaimer.

The proposed rule could also influence broader patent filing strategies. Applicants might become more cautious about submitting continuation applications with minor variations, opting instead for more distinct inventions. There may also be a tendency to include claims of varying scope in initial applications to avoid the need for follow-on patents or to provoke a restriction requirement that sidesteps the issue of obviousness-type double patenting.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More