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.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, use the same link but select the 'trial' option in the dropdown box. NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at firstname.lastname@example.org
Patent, US Court of Appeals, Access Closure Inc, Janzen patent