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
 
In association with
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
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

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