The US Court for the Federal Circuit ruled in September on an important double patenting case. Garth Dahlen takes a look.
In a decision rendered on September 11, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that claims in a first sibling patent (Janzen patent) were protected under the safe-harbour provision of 35 USC §121 from invalidity due to double patenting over claims in a related second sibling patent.
This case is particularly important in areas such as biotechnology, wherein patent examiners often issue a restriction requirement in combination with an election of species requirement.
The safe-harbour provision can be invoked when a line of demarcation between independent and distinct inventions that prompted a restriction requirement in a parent application has been maintained as between the parent application and the offspring application(s). When this line of demarcation has been maintained, the relevant patents are said to meet the requirement for consonance.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
Patent, US Court of Appeals, Access Closure Inc, Janzen patent