United States: Goodlatte Proposes An Obviousness Type Double Patenting Statute

One of the provisions of the Innovation Act introduced by Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) on October 23, 2014, purports to codify the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for applications and patents examined under the first-inventor-to-file regime. However, the proposed statutory language appears to both go too far (including possibly making double patenting a basis for inter partes review) and not far enough in its attempt to carry forward the judicially-created doctrine.

The Proposed Statute

Section 9(d) of the Innovation Act would add the following statute:

§ 106. Prior art in cases of double patenting

A claimed invention of a patent issued under section 151 (referred to as the 'first patent') that is not prior art to a claimed invention of another patent (referred to as the 'second patent') shall be considered prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103 if—
(1) the claimed invention of the first patent was effectively filed under section 102(d) on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent;
(2) either—
(A) the first patent and second patent name the same inventor; or
(B) the claimed invention of the first patent would constitute prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent under section 102(a)(2) if an exception under section 102(b)(2) were deemed to be inapplicable and the claimed invention of the first patent was, or were deemed to be, effectively filed under section 102(d) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent; and
(3) the patentee of the second patent has not disclaimed the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent.

What Does This Mean?

The statute defines the circumstances under which "the claimed invention" of a "first" patent can be cited against a "second" patent for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103. The requirements are set forth in the opening paragraph and in clauses (1) – (3), which each must be satisfied.

The opening paragraph would limit "first" patents (e.g., patents that can be asserted in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection against a second patent) to patents that do not otherwise qualify as prior art against the second patent. On the other hand, clause (1) would require that "the claimed invention of the first patent was effectively filed under section 102(d) on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent." Taken together, this means that the claimed invention of the "first" patent must have the same or earlier effective filing date as the second patent, but must not qualify as prior art for some reason.

Clause (2) could be satisfied by meeting one of two alternatives:

Under clause (2)(A), clause (2) would be satisfied if the first patent and second patent "name the same inventor." It is not clear whether this clause would be satisfied if the patents have at least one inventor in common, or if it requires identical inventorship. Under existing obviousness-type double patenting practice, having one inventor in common is sufficient to support the "common inventorship" requirement for obviousness-type double patenting.

Clause (2)(B) is more difficult to follow, and may not say what it is intended to say. As written, clause (2)(B) would be satisfied if the claimed invention of the first patent would qualify as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) if an exception under 35 USC § 102(b)(2) did not apply. It is likely that this clause is intended to be satisfied if the first and second patents are linked by common ownership or a joint research agreement, but that "exception" to § 102(a)(2) is found in § 102(b)(2)(C) (and § 102(c)). By referring to § 102(b)(2) as a whole, clause (2)(B) embraces situations where the subject matter at issue in the first patent "was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor" of the second patent (§ 102(b)(2)(A)) or "had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor [of the second patent] or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor [of the second patent" (§ 102(b)(2)(B)), even if the first and second patents are not linked by common inventorship, common ownership, or a joint research agreement. Does that make any sense?

Under clause (3), the "first" patent could not be cited in an obviousness type double patenting rejection if the patentee of the second patent has "disclaimed the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent." (Section 9(d)(3) of the Innovation Act authorizes the USPTO Director to specify requirements for a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome this type of issue.)

Interestingly, section 9(d)(4) of the Innovation Act would provide that a patent that is subject to § 106 could not be held invalid "on any nonstatutory, double-patenting ground," while section 9(d)(5) would limit its applicability to situations where "both the first and second patents ... are patents or patent applications that are described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act," e.g., where both the first and second patents are subject to the first-inventor-to-file version of § 102.

How Does § 106 Go Too Far?

Proposed § 106 expressly invokes § 103, the prior art obviousness statute. While the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting invokes some aspects of obviousness jurisprudence, the main purpose of the judicially-created doctrine is "to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent." By referring to § 103, proposed § 106 may erase the differences between the substantive standards for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting, and may expressly invoke the frame of reference set forth in § 103. For example, whereas § 103 is judged from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art "before the effective filing date of the claimed invention," obviousness-type double patenting is not necessarily tethered to the effective filing date, but can be overcome by relying on "subsequent developments in the art" occurring after the effective filing date. See Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Doll, 561 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Federal Circuit also has noted other differences between § 103 and obviousness-double patenting. See Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1378 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003.

Further, to the extent that § 106 would extend obviousness-type double patenting beyond the purpose of preventing "the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent," it could vitiate the protections of § 102(b)(2)(C), such as if obviousness-type double patenting is based on combining the subject matter of the claimed invention of the "first" patent with any number of prior art references, as could be permitted under § 103.

Clause (2)(B) of proposed § 106 appears to go too far by providing for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection where the first and second patents are not linked by common inventorship, ownership or a joint research agreement, if the claimed invention of the first patent was was obtained from the inventor of the second patent, or if the inventor of the second patent had publicly disclosed the claimed subject matter before the effective filing date of the first patent. Under those circumstances, it seems that the first patent should be rejected or invalidated, not cited against the second patent.

Significantly, § 106 might make obviousness-type double patenting a new basis for requesting inter partes review. By statute, inter partes review only can be based on any "ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." Because the existing judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting does not invoke § 103, obviousness-type double patenting currently cannot be the basis of inter partes review. However, § 106 as proposed in the Goodlatte Innovation Act might change this because the proposed statute would provide that the "first" patent "shall be considered prior art ... for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103." That is, by treating the "first" patent as "prior art" and expressly invoking § 103, proposed § 106 could make obviousness-type double patent a new basis for inter partes review.

How Does § 106 Not Go Far Enough?

On the other hand, to the extent that § 106 is intended to codify current obviousness-type double patenting jurisprudence, it may not go far enough. For example, proposed § 106 limits the "first" patent to a patent or application that does not qualify as prior art, while under the judicially-created doctrine, a "first" patent can be cited against a second patent regardless of whether it also qualifies as prior art. Additionally, proposed § 106 limits the "first" patent to a patent or application with the same or earlier effective filing date, while under the judicially-created doctrine a "first" patent can be cited against a second patent regardless of whether it has an earlier effective filing date. At least the latter restriction on the first" patent would prevent a later-filed patent from being cited against an earlier filed patent or application, which sometimes occurs under existing obviousness-type double patenting jurisprudence.

The restrictions on the applicability of proposed § 106 also are interesting. Why should it matter that the "first" patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file version of § 102? If only the second patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file version of § 102 could it not be rejected for obviousness-type double patenting, or would the existing judicially-created doctrine apply? If the existing judicially-created doctrine could apply, why do we need § 106?

A Difficult Area of Law Needs More Clarity, Not More Confusion

Obviousness-type double patenting is one of the more difficult aspects of U.S. patent law. The proposed obviousness-type double patenting statute included in the Innovation Act does nothing to clarify the law, but instead would create even more confusion, by raising new issues as to what it means, and generating a second line of obviousness-type double patenting jurisprudence that would be similar but different from the existing judicially-created doctrine. Further, the proposed statute could vitiate the protections of § 102(b)(2)(C) and expand the grounds for inter partes review. In view of all these issues, is 106 even necessary? Does the existing judicially-created doctrine really not apply to first-inventor-to-file patents?

Many thanks to my colleague Andrew Baluch for his contributions to this article.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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