United States: In Re Hubbell Puts Inventors At A Disadvantage

Obviousness-type double patenting usually arises between commonly owned patents or patent applications. While the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has interpreted the judicially created doctrine as pertaining when there is common or overlapping inventorship, without regard to common ownership, the Federal Circuit had not upheld that interpretation of the doctrine until recently in In re Hubbell.

The Patent and Application at Issue

The obviousness-type double patenting rejection at issue was raised in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/650,509, which names Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch and Heike Hall as inventors and was assigned to California Institute of Technology.

The '509 application was filed on Aug. 27, 2003, as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/024,918, filed on Dec. 18, 2001, which was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/057,052, filed on April 8, 1998, also a continuation of PCT Application PCT/US98/06617, filed on April 2, 1998, which claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/042,143, filed on April 3, 1997.

The '509 application is directed to "enzyme-mediated modification of fibrin for tissue engineering." Representative claim 18 recites: "A bidomain protein or peptide comprising a transglutaminase substrate domain and a polypeptide growth factor."

In 1998, Hubbell left Cal Tech and went to work at Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETHZ). The cited patent, U.S. Patent 7,601,685, is related to work done by Hubbell and Schense at the ETHZ.

The '685 patent names Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense and Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert as inventors and was assigned to the ETHZ and Universitat Zurich.

The '685 patent is based on an application that was filed Dec. 17, 2002, and was granted on Oct. 13, 2009. The patent is directed to "growth factor modified protein matrices for tissue engineering." Representative claim 1 recites:

A fusion protein, comprising:

  1. a first protein domain;
  2. a second protein domain; and
  3. an enzymatic or hydrolytic cleavage site between the first and second domains; wherein the first domain is a growth factor selected from the group consisting of the platelet derived growth factor superfamily and the transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) superfamily; wherein the second domain is a crosslinking Factor XIIIa substrate domain; wherein the enzymatic cleavage site is selected from the group consisting of proteolytic substrates and polysaccharide substrates, and wherein the hydrolytic cleavage site comprises a substrate with a linkage which undergoes hydrolysis by an acid or a base catalyzed reaction.

The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection

As summarized by the Federal Circuit, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection was based on the USPTO Examiner's finding that certain claims in the '685 patent "are a species of the instantly claimed invention [of the '590 application] and as such are encompassed by the claimed invention and thus anticipate the claimed invention."

The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed the rejection, finding that "claim 1 of the '685 patent recites a protein that contains both of the features required in rejected claim 18:

  • "a transglutaminase substrate domain" was met by the "crosslinking Factor XIIIa substrate Domain" and
  • "a polypeptide growth factor" was met by the "first protein domain," which is defined in the claim as "a growth factor selected from the group consisting of the platelet derived growth factor superfamily and the transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) superfamily."

Further, because claim 18 used the open transitional phrase "comprising," it encompassed constructs with other elements, such as those recited in claim 1 of the '685 patent.

Because a genus claim is anticipated by a species claim, the board agreed that the claims of the '509 application were properly rejected over the claims of the '685 patent.

Hubbell argued that the obviousness-type double patenting rejection was not proper because the '685 patent and the '509 application were not commonly owned. The board rejected that argument, citing the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) which states in MPEP § 804(I)(A): "Double patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, or by a different inventive entity having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee/owner."

The board also cited Federal Circuit precedent for the proposition that the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting stems from a "concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention," even where there was no common ownership.

The Doctrine of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

The Federal Circuit provided this summary of the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting: Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine designed to "prevent claims in separate applications or patents that do not recite the 'same' invention, but nonetheless claim inventions so alike that granting both exclusive rights would effectively extend the life of patent protection." Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005). It prohibits the issuance of claims in a second patent that are "not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent." In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). A later patent claim "is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

The court explained that "[t]here are two justifications for obviousness-type double patenting."

  • The first is "to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent no matter how the extension is brought about."
  • The second rationale is to prevent multiple infringement suits by different assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention.

No Requirement for Common Ownership

As summarized by the Federal Circuit, Hubbell's argument on appeal was: Obviousness-type double patenting should not apply where ... an application and a conflicting patent share common inventors but do not have identical inventive entities, were never commonly owned, and are not subject to a joint research agreement.

The court disagreed.

The Federal Circuit determined that it could "take judicial notice" of MPEP § 804(I)(A) because it is consistent with the rationale that the court has applied in the obviousness-type double patenting context, e.g., "the importance of preventing harassment of an alleged infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention."

The court noted that that very concern would arise here if the '509 application were granted:

[I]f Hubbell's rejected application claims were to issue, the potential for harassment by multiple assignees would exist because an infringer of claim 1 of the '685 patent would also infringe at least rejected claim 18. As such, there is a risk that a potential infringer could be subject to suit from both Cal Tech and ETHZ and Universitat Zurich under their respective patents.

The court reasoned that because of this concern, it does not matter that the patent and application never were commonly owned.

The court also rejected Hubbell's argument that he should be permitted to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome the rejection, citing the USPTO's rule (37 CFR § 1.321(c)(3)) providing that a terminal disclaimer requires common ownership.

Thus, the court affirmed the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.

Judge Newman's Dissent

Newman dissented, explaining her view that:

Obviousness-type double patenting does not apply when the application and patent are of separate ownership and have separate inventive entities. In such situation the appropriate examination path is on the merits of the invention, or through the interference or derivation procedures, or other standard protocol as may apply in the particular situation.

Alternatively, Newman asserted that if obviousness-type double patenting could be found without common ownership, it should be possible to file a terminal disclaimer without common ownership.

Is "Harassment" by Different Owners Really a Problem?

The court's emphasis on avoiding the "problem" of being subject to harassment by different patent owners is particularly interesting in the genus and species context. There are numerous species patents that are dominated by a genus patent with a different owner. Indeed, the whole patent paradigm is based on the principle that once an inventor discloses his invention to the public in his patent application, others will build on that work and develop improvement inventions.

The court's decision here seems to put prolific inventors at a disadvantage by keying obviousness-type double patenting to overlapping inventorship rather than common ownership. If the '685 patent had been invented by a completely different inventive entity, both patents would have been granted, notwithstanding the fact that someone practicing the subject matter of the '685 patent also would have infringed the '590 claims and would have been subject to suit by both owners.

Further, if the claims had been prosecuted in a different order, such that the '509 application claims were granted before the '685 patent, both patents might have been granted, notwithstanding their overlapping subject matter.

For example, even if an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection had been raised in the '685 patent, such a rejection can be overcome on the merits by establishing that the claimed species is patentably distinct from the earlier granted genus claims. In such circumstances, there would be two separate patents with different owners that both would be infringed by practicing the '685 patent.

Perhaps the lesson here is to prosecute genus claims first, but applicants often focus their efforts on obtaining species claims directed to commercial products or products in development, with the understanding that genus claims can be pursued in a continuation application. This is particularly the case if the USPTO Examiner agrees that species claims are allowable but has rejected genus claims.

Instead of delaying the grant of all claims through continued prosecution or appeal, many applicants decide to obtain prompt grant of allowable claims and pursue broader claims in a continuation application. While applicants usually understand that a terminal disclaimer over the granted patent may be required in the continuation application, this decision raises the risk that the genus claims may never be granted.

Originally published in Law360, March 21, 2013

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ward and Smith, P.A.
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ward and Smith, P.A.
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions