United States: Ride The Wave: Series Of Cases Show Favorable Seas

From 35,000 feet, a series of Federal Circuit and PTAB decisions written about in this blog may show favorable times of which patent owners should take note and try to leverage as much as possible.

Ex parte Gleave, Appeal 2012-004973 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014), provided an issued life science means-plus function claim, giving an example of obtaining broader scope using the means-plus-function format. Taking care to carefully link the “means for” in the claim to the specification can help avoid prior art and avoid written description and enablement issues. This may mean added difficulty for third parties challenging patentability at the PTAB or validity in district court. The potential uncertainty of the scope of literal statutory equivalents under §112(f) for a life science patent also creates obstacles to third-party design-arounds.

In Sanofi v. Watson, 875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Sanofi’s label cross-referenced the clinical trial data in the label’s Indications and Usage section and recited the clinical trial results in the Clinical Studies portion of the label.  Sanofi obtained a patent claiming the clinical study results and matching the label. Sanofi. In later litigation, used this ingenious label/patent claim strategy to corner the generic manufacturers into having to propose the same labeling, ultimately sealing their fate for inducement to infringe. According to the Federal Circuit: “The content of the label in this case permits the inference of specific intent to encourage the infringing use.” Id. at 646. Sanofi thus achieved the valuable result of 10 more years of patent exclusivity. To the extent, as in Sanofi v. Watson, that the generic/biosimilar manufacturer has to copy the label to obtain FDA approval, method-of-treatment claims that appear to be very narrow can defeat the generic/biosimilar manufacturers. Of course, the innovator needs to obtain claim limitations based on a U.S. patent specification that closely corresponds with the label language and the clinical trial results. And, of course, for this strategy to work in the U.S. the initial patent application loaded with all that clinical trial information must be filed BEFORE the clinical trial results become disabling prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) in the absence of any 102(b) exception(s). Early and frequent coordination between the patent, research, and the regulatory arms of the NDA holder/reference product sponsor can facilitate this strategy.

The Federal Circuit rejected the USPTO’s calculation of patent term adjustment in Supernus v. Iancu, 913 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019), leading to Supernus’ victory and receiving the disputed 546 days as additional patent term. The USPTO refused to subtract from the calculated applicant delay any time based on the submission of an IDS after a RCE. Supernus argued that it should not have been penalized the 546 days between its filing of a RCE (Feb. 22, 2011) and the EPO notification of the Sandoz Opposition (Aug. 21, 2012). Supernus pointed out that there were no efforts it could have undertaken during this time to further prosecution; there was no way for it to know about any filings in the EPO earlier than Aug. 21, 2012. The district court granted judgment in favor of the USPTO and held that the decision in Gilead v. Lee “foreclosed, as a matter of law, Supernus’s statutory interpretation arguments that 37 C.F.R. §1.704(c)(8) and § 1.704(d)(1) are arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise contrary to the PTA statute.” The Federal Circuit reversed. “Gilead does not foreclose Supernus’s statutory interpretation argument” because Gilead didn’t address whether there was a failure to engage in reasonable efforts. “Gilead ruled only that the regulation reasonably drew no line between actual and potential delay[.]” Supernus could not have engaged in reasonable efforts to concluded prosecution for the 546 days between filing the RCE and the EPO’s notification of the Sandoz opposition. Therefore, the days counted by the USPTO against Supernus improperly exceeded the “time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application.” A take home is to check PTAs awarded in recently issued cases to determine whether your facts match those of Supernus and whether days that were docked do not in fact stem from a “failure to engage in reasonable efforts.” Another is don’t wait for the PTO to issue a final rule on Supernus.  Proactively, apply that decision to your PTA calculus.

In both Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, 909 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, 909 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the patent owner, Novartis. The decisions clarified that Gilead’s and AbbVie’s focus on expiration dates in the ODP analysis are restricted to situations involving patents filed post-GATT. In Novartis v. Ezra, the Federal Circuit held that a second-filed, second-issued patent cannot be asserted as an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) reference against a first-filed, first-issued patent where the statutorily defined patent terms are different due to pre-URAA and post-URAA status and a patent term extension. Novartis’ pre-GATT ‘229 patent claimed compounds, including fingolimod, and expired Feb. 18, 2014, with a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. §156 to Feb. 18, 2019. Novartis’ GATT ‘565 patent claimed a method of administering fingolimod and expired on Sept. 23, 2017. The Federal Circuit held in favor of Novartis, upholding a patent owner’s choice of which patent term to extend. Any “effective” extension of the ‘565 GATT patent by virtue of the ‘229 patent is a “permissible consequence of the legal status conferred upon the '229 pre-GATT patent by § 156.” Id. “[A]greeing with Ezra would mean that a judge-made doctrine [ODP] would cut off a statutorily-authorized time extension.” Id. at *6. It “decline[d] to do so.” Id.

In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision holding that a later-filed, earlier-expiring, 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. Novartis’ pre-GATT ‘772 patent expired on September 9, 2014, with a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. §156 to September 9, 2019. The asserted invalidating reference, Novartis's GATT ‘990 patent was filed after, and issued after the '772 pre-GATT patent, but expired before the '772 pre-GATT patent. Both patents claimed the same priority date. The lifespan of the '772 pre-GATT patent encompasses and extends beyond that of the '990 GATT patent, even without considering the PTE. According to the Federal Circuit, its Gilead reasoning was limited to URAA patents. In this [Breckenridge] case, the order of expiration of the patents is by operation of statute; there was no “patent prosecution gamesmanship.”

Barry v. Medtronic, 914 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2019), was another positive decision for patent owners. In Barry, the Federal Circuit found that Dr. Barry's invention was not barred by public use or sale before the critical date because (1) the invention was not ready for patenting prior to the critical date, and (2) that up to the critical date, there was only experimental use, which negates both public use and sale. “[E]xperimental use negates invalidity under the public use bar.” The majority, concluding that “the timing of knowledge that the invention will ‘work for its intended purpose’ is important to both experimental use and readiness for patenting,” emphasized that the “’intended purpose’ need not be stated in claim limitations that define the claim scope.” Showing experimental use to negate public use or on sale argument is a very fact-intensive inquiry.  The more inventors can do to record the development path of their invention as it is happening and articulate the “intended purpose” of the invention with specificity in the claims and/or specification, the stronger a theory of experimental use may be, as well as the stronger a theory of not ready for patenting may be. The decision in Barry pushes out the time an invention is “ready for patenting” until the applicant knows the invention will work for its “intended purpose.” In Barry, “ready for patenting”  was at the conclusion of a third surgery and evaluation of its results.  Two previous surgeries and evaluation of the results thereof were not considered to establish “ready for patenting.”

The pendulum of patent-friendliness of court decisions constantly swings. Patent owners should take note of these current patent-friendly decisions and try to leverage them as much as possible, particularly in the areas of means-plus-function in the life sciences, induced infringement, patent term adjustment, obviousness type double patenting, and public use bearing in mind the factual backdrop of each of these recent decisions

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
26 Mar 2019, Other, Frankfurt, Germany

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the Automotive Legal & IP World Summit, hosted by Encom Global. Finnegan partner Lionel Lavenue will join the panel discussion “Identifying Opportunities to Patent Inventions Arising from Digital and Connected Technologies."

26 Mar 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the Automotive Legal & IP World Summit, hosted by Encom Global.

28 Mar 2019, Conference, New York, United States

Finnegan is an Executive Partner sponsor of the eleventh annual Corporate IP Counsel Forum, hosted by World Congress.

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
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (please 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