United States: A Later-Issued But Earlier-Expiring Patent Can Serve As An Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Reference To Invalidate An Earlier-Issued, Later-Expiring Patent

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., No. 13-1418 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2014), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's SJ decision that Gilead Sciences, Inc.'s ("Gilead") asserted patent was not invalid, holding that a later-issued, earlier-expiring Gilead patent could serve as an obviousness-type double patenting reference against the asserted patent.  

Gilead owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,763,483 ("the '483 patent") and 5,952,375 ("the '375 patent"), both directed to antiviral compounds and methods for their use.  The '483 and '375 patents list the same inventors, but they do not claim priority to a common patent application and they have different expiration dates as governed by the provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA").  As illustrated in the figure below, the '375 patent, which claims priority to an application filed on February 27, 1995, issued on September 14, 1999, and will expire on February 27, 2015.  The '483 patent, which was filed on December 27, 1996, and claims priority to a provisional application filed on December 29, 1995, issued on June 9, 1998 (before the '375 patent), but will expire on December 27, 2016 (after the '375 patent).  A terminal disclaimer was filed for the '375 patent based on the '483 patent, but no terminal disclaimer was filed for the '483 patent.

Slip op. at 4.

Gilead sued Natco Pharma Limited ("Natco") for infringement of the '483 patent after Natco filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of one of Gilead's drugs allegedly covered by the '483 patent.  As its only invalidity defense, Natco asserted that the '483 patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over the '375 patent.  The district court granted SJ in favor of Gilead, concluding that a later-issued but earlier-expiring patent cannot serve as a double patenting reference against an earlier-issued but later-expiring patent.  After Natco conditionally stipulated to infringement, the district court certified its SJ ruling for appeal.

"In cases where such obviousness-type double patenting is present, a terminal disclaimer can preserve the validity of the later-expiring patent by aligning its expiration date with that of the earlier-expiring patent."  Slip op. at 16.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in excluding the '375 patent as a potential double patenting reference against the '483 patent.  The Court first reviewed the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, explaining that this long-standing patent law doctrine "is based on the core principle that, in exchange for a patent, an inventor must fully disclose his invention and promise to permit free use of it at the end of his patent term."  Id. at 6.  The Court also explained that the scope of the bar against double patenting has been well established, with federal courts applying the doctrine's principles for over a century to preserve the public's right to use not only the exact invention claimed by an inventor but also obvious modifications of that invention that are not patentably distinct.  The Court noted the addition of 35 U.S.C. § 253 in 1952, which in part permits a patentee to disclaim any terminal part of a patent term, as well as the Court's recognition in In re Robeson, 331 F.2d 610, 614 (CCPA 1964), that § 253's terminal disclaimer provision provided patent owners a remedy against a charge of obviousness-type double patenting.  

The Federal Circuit then held that the principle protected by the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine "is violated when a patent expires and the public is nevertheless barred from practicing obvious modifications of the invention claimed in that patent because the inventor holds another later-expiring patent with claims for obvious modifications of the invention," as "is the case here."  Slip op. at 11.  Assuming for the appeal that the '483 patent covers obvious modifications of the invention claimed in the '375 patent, the Court explained that once the '375 patent expires on February 27, 2015, the public will not be free to use the invention claimed in that patent and all obvious variants of that invention for another twenty-two months, because the '483 patent will not expire until December 27, 2016.  Rejecting Gilead's argument that the '375 patent in no way extends the term of the '483 patent, which issued first, the Court saw "little import here in the fact that the '483 patent issued first."  Id. at 12.  The Court distinguished cases directed to pre-URAA patents, explaining that for double patenting inquiries, looking to patent issue dates had in those cases served as a reliable stand-in for the date that mattered—patent expiration.  Thus, according to the Court, "in light of the principles reflected in our prior case law as explained above, it is the comparison of Gilead's patent expiration dates that should control, not merely the issuance dates."  Id. at 13. 

The Court decided that relying only on issuance dates for post-URAA patents would have several shortcomings.  First, "the terms of such patents could be subject to significant gamesmanship during prosecution."  Id.  Specifically, the Court contemplated that "inventors could routinely orchestrate patent term extensions by (1) filing serial applications on obvious modifications of an invention, (2) claiming priority to different applications in each, and then (3) arranging for the application claiming the latest filing date to issue first," thus allowing inventors to obtain additional patent term while also exploring the value of an earlier priority date.  Id.  Second, the Court noted the possibility for significant yet arbitrary differences in patent term based on mere days' difference in patent issuance.  Using Gilead's patents as an example, the Court observed that if the '375 patent issued the day before the '483 patent, going strictly by issuance date would make the last twenty-two months of the '483 patent's term an improper patent term extension, but not if the '375 patent issued the day after the '483 patent.  In contrast, the Court concluded, "[p]ermitting any earlier expiring patent to serve as a double patenting reference for a patent subject to the URAA guarantees a stable benchmark that preserves the public's right to use the invention (and its obvious variants) that are claimed in a patent when that patent expires" and preserves the ability of inventors to use a terminal disclaimer of later-expiring patents to create one expiration date for their term of exclusivity.  Id. at 15.  Finally, the Court noted that looking to the expiration date was consistent with the PTO's guidance in MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1), which instructs that a terminal disclaimer is required for the later-filed (and thus later-expiring) of two pending applications.

The Court therefore held that Gilead's earlier-expiring '375 patent could qualify as an obviousness-type double patenting reference for Gilead's later-expiring '483 patent.  Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court's SJ decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judge Rader dissented.  According to Judge Rader, none of the policy concerns behind obviousness-type double patenting justified in this case the "new rule" crafted by the Court—that in the case of competing patents, the earliest expiration date governs the inquiry irrespective of filing or issue dates. 
Rader Dissent at 3, 4-5.  First, Judge Rader observed that this case did not raise the policy concern regarding subsequent extensions of patent term, since Gilead's subsequent '375 patent unquestionably did not extend the term of the earlier-issued '483 patent, noting that "if the '375 patent had never issued, Gilead would certainly be entitled to the '483 patent's 2016 expiration date."  Id. at 4.  Second, the case did not involve the potential for harassment by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention since the '375 patent was subject to a terminal disclaimer over the '483 patent and thus was only enforceable so long as both were commonly owned.  Judge Rader found the Court's reasoning not only unpersuasive, since under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) Gilead followed the precise approved course—obtaining a longer patent term by subjecting the '483 patent to roughly ten months of intervening prior art—but also based on a flawed assumption that, upon expiration of a patent, the public obtained an absolute right to use the previously claimed subject matter.  Viewing the question through "the lens of judicial restraint," Judge Rader concluded that Gilead's conduct was not so manifestly unreasonable to warrant the Court's new judicially created exception to invalidate patents.  Id. at 6.

Judges: Rader (dissenting), Prost, Chen (author)

[Appealed from D.N.J., Judge Wigenton]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, May 2014.

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.

Events from this Firm
17 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a Platinum sponsor of the ChIPs Women in Tech, Law, & Policy Global Summit. The program will take place at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC.

23 Oct 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

How do trademark and advertising trends impact your company? Join a discussion on the latest trends in the food and beverage industry in the United States and Europe.

24 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Join the usual suspects from Finnegan as they take you through a detailed discussion of patent prosecution strategies from drafting to grant.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Ward and Smith, P.A.
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
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