United States: ODP: Cracks In The Armor? An Alert Regarding The Pending Breckenridge And Ezra Federal Circuit Appeals

By Seth Bruneel, Stacy Lewis

Introduction

In June 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard two cases, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (Docket No. 2017-2173) and Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (Docket No. 2017-2284). Both cases set forth questions of obvious-type double patenting ("ODP") that arise out of timings relative to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (hereafter "GATT").1 Both cases present unique issues and provide the Federal Circuit with an opportunity to answer unclear questions from earlier precedent.

Background

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit addressed whether a later-issued, but earlier-expiring patent could qualify as a double patenting reference against an earlier-issued but later-expiring patent. Gilead brought suit against Natco for infringement based on U.S. Patent 5,763,483 ("the '483 patent"). Natco asserted that the '483 patent was invalid for ODP over Gilead's patent, U.S. Patent 5,952,375 ("the '375 patent"). As shown below, the '483 patent was filed in December 1996, issued in June 1998, and expired in December 2016. The '375 patent claimed priority to February 1995, issued September 1999, and the twenty-year-term expired February 2015.

The Federal Circuit panel (Judges Prost, Chen, and Rader; Judge Rader filed a dissenting opinion) based its decision on public policy reasoning. Gilead argued that the '375 patent did not extend the exclusivity of the '483 patent, grabbing onto the idea that double patenting can be a bar to a second issued patent based on a first issued patent, but not vice versa. However, the majority of the Court set aside the fact that the '483 patent issued first, focusing instead on expiration dates and the policy idea that at the expiration of a patent, the public has a right to use the invention claimed.

The Court in Gilead explained that the expiration date "guarantees a stable benchmark that preserves the public's right to use the invention ... when that patent expires."2 Thus, the Court, on the facts before it, held that a patent that issues after, but expires before, another patent can qualify as a double patenting reference for the previously-issued, later-expiring patent if the claims of the two patents are not patentably distinct.

Later that same year, the Federal Circuit decided Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Abbvie answered the question of whether the doctrine of ODP still applies in light of GATT.  The Court in Abbvie upheld ODP where two patents were admittedly directed to claims that were not patentably distinct but had different expiration dates. Abbvie, 764 F.3d at 1372 (clarifying that for invalidity based on ODP, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proving lack of patentable distinctness by "clear and convincing evidence."). 

Ezra

Against this legal backdrop, the Federal Circuit revisits ODP in the Ezra and Breckenridge cases. Ezra addresses whether a second-filed, second-issued patent can be asserted as an ODP reference where the statutorily defined patent terms are different due to pre-GATT and post-GATT status and a patent term extension.

Judge Stark in the District Court of Delaware was not persuaded by Ezra's arguments that the grant of the patent term extension for the '299 patent (see top line below) effectively extended the term for the '565 patent (see bottom line below). Judge Stark relied on the Federal Circuit's analysis of the legislative history for 35 U.S.C. § 156 to decide that Congress left the choice of which single patent term to extend in the hands of the patent owner.  Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharma. Co., 482 F.3d 13717, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007). He further reasoned that this flexibility included the "de facto" extension of the second patent due to patent term extension of the first, as shown below.

During oral arguments in front of Judges Moore, Chen, and Hughes, Ezra argued that the flexibility left to the patent owner in Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharma. Co., 482 F.3d 13717, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007), does not permit patent term extension to effectively extend a second patent, here the '299 patent. But rather, according to Ezra, the patent owner must make a thoughtful choice as to which patent term to extend under §156. Ezra argued that Novartis made the wrong decision and that a patent term extension is not a period of immunity. Instead, all other patent laws still apply to the '299 patent during the extension, including ODP over the '565 patent.

Novartis argued that ODP is used to stop "unjust" extension of a patent term but that a patent term extension is a justified extension created by Congress and codified in law after Congress weighed public policy considerations.

Novartis also used footnote 6 from the Gilead case to support their arguments. Footnote 6 said that there are exceptions to the pre-GATT rule that later-issued patents expired later, such as in the case of a patent that qualifies for term extension.  Gilead, 753 F.3d at 1215.  And since the patent term extension was obtained by adherence to the relevant law and procedures, the extension was, according to Novartis, a justified extension.

Weighing the arguments presented and the questions from the Judges, it suggests, even though reading a panel involves guesswork, not mathematics, that the Federal Circuit will uphold Judge Stark and uphold a patent owner's choice of which patent term to extend, even though that choice, in the case of a second-expiring patent as in Ezra, could lead effectively to an extension of a first-expiring patent. The Federal Circuit has already pointed out (Gilead footnote 6) that there are exceptions. Further, Congress has provided a means to extend the term of a patent with the only limitation being that only one patent may be extended.

Breckenridge

The day after the oral argument for Ezra, Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen (Judge Chen was common to both panels), heard arguments in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. Breckenridge was appealed from the District of Delaware where Judge Andrews held that a later-filed, earlier-expiring, post-GATT patent could serve as an ODP reference to invalidate a first-filed, later-expiring pre-GATT patent and thus deny that pre-GATT patent from enjoying a full seventeen-year term from issuance.

Judge Andrews distinguished Gilead from this case by pointing out that Gilead involved two post-GATT patents and that the differences in priority were the cause of the differences in expiration dates. Novartis urged that ODP was an equitable doctrine requiring a showing that the extension of the patent term was somehow unjust or that the patent owner had engaged in gamesmanship. However, Judge Andrews disagreed and found that the '990 patent was a proper double patenting reference for invalidating the '772 patent (see schematic below).

At the Federal Circuit argument, the Judges asked "Isn't this Gilead?" Novartis pointed to footnote 5 of Gilead where the Court said the public's right to practice the expired patent may be further limited by some other means established by Congress, such as a patent term extension.  Id.  Novartis also circled back to the idea that this would not be an unjust extension, pointing to Congress' action as the reasons for the extension.

Breckenridge argued that this is Gilead. When questioned by the Court about the effect of a terminal disclaimer, Breckenridge argued that the terminal disclaimer is not tied to the term of the patent, but rather to the public's right to practice the claimed invention at expiration and that double patenting protects the public by preventing the monopoly from extending beyond the term of the first-expired patent. Tellingly, the Court also asked if an affirmance would be the first time that a pre-GATT patent got less than the 17-year term due to ODP. Breckenridge urged that this was not a request for a curtailed patent term but rather a request for invalidity.

Here, this is a very narrow situation. Precedent might be read improperly, to suggest that, based on the expiration dates, the monopoly over the claimed invention should end with the earlier expiration date. However, the Court should reason that the differences in the patent terms are a result of statute and upholding the district court's decision would cut short the patent term set forth in the pre-GATT law.  Reading the tea leaves, the Federal Circuit will reverse the district court decision and create a judicial exemption to the judicially created doctrine of ODP when the expiration dates of possible double patenting references are different due only to their pre- and post-GATT status and when application of ODP would curtail the 17-year term of the pre-GATT patent.

Conclusion

Looking at arguments that have failed at the Federal Circuit, it is unlikely that lack of "gamesmanship" will prevent application of ODP, but differences in controlling statutes, as in Breckenridge, may preclude ODP. Nor, as in Ezra, will the court place the burden on the patent owner for making some kind of "correct" or "thoughtful" choice when seeking a patent term extension. Rather, the only limitation by statute is that only one patent may be extended.

Footnotes

1 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) was enacted as part of a larger process called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The URAA changed the U.S. patent term to 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. Before the URAA, the U.S. patent term was 17 years from filing. When the URAA was enacted, there was provision for a transition period when patent owners could choose the longer of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from filing. See Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Pub. L. No. 103–465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4983 (1994), amending 35 U.S.C. § 154.

2 Gilead, 753 F.3d at 1216. That policy, of course, has limits not before the Court in Gilead. First, any patents issuing from divisional applications filed in response to a restriction requirement are protected from a finding of ODP if consonance is maintained. 35 U.S.C. §121. Also, it has long been known in the U.S. patent system that a second-expiring patent that is patentably distinct from a first-expiring patent does not improperly extend the term of the first expiring patent. The classic example is where a second-expiring patent is directed to a species that is patentably distinct from a genus claim in the first-expiring patent. See, e.g., Brigham and Women's Hospital Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 761 F.Supp.2d 210, 224 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2011)("In the context of double patenting, an earlier patent claiming a large genus of pharmaceutical compounds does not preclude a later patent from claiming a species within that genus, so long as the species is novel, useful, and nonobvious. In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1577–80 (Fed.Cir.1986); see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., 364 F.Supp.2d 820, 909–10 (S.D.Ind. 2005). It is not surprising or controversial that either the same or a different inventor will improve upon and attempt to patent a novel, useful, and nonobvious variation of a compound claimed by an earlier patent. Kaplan, 789 F.2d at 1578. Generally, the genus or 'dominant' patent will expire while claims to the patentably distinct species or selection invention continue into the future. Id."). See also, UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 890 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the claims to a later-expiring species were held patentably distinct from an earlier-expiring genus.

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
Events from this Firm
24 Jul 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

The program will consider arguments that have worked to avoid a finding of inequitable conduct or unclean hands and those that have not been successful.

9 Aug 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Barbara Rudolph will discuss best practices for patent counsel navigating the 30-month stay in Hatch-Waxman Act litigation.

5 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan’s 2018 webinar series addresses challenges across the IP landscape in the United States. The series starts with one of the fundamentals—proving or disproving obviousness. The panelists will address what works and what doesn’t before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiners, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and before the courts.

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