double-patenting
Sergey Nivens / Shutterstock.com
20 June 2014AmericasMaryAnne Armstrong

Double patenting: expiry dates hold the key

The April 22, 2014 decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc v Natco Pharma Inc (Gilead) emphasises that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a concern not just during the examination of a patent before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) but is a viable basis for invalidating an issued patent despite the presumption of validity that a patent has under 35 USC §282. In the case, Gilead owned two patents: the ‘483 and the ‘375. After being sued for infringement of the ‘483 patent, Natco asserted that the claims of the ‘483 patent were invalid for ODP as being obvious given the claims of the ‘375 patent.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Americas
10 February 2026   Telehealth platform faces legal action from the Danish pharma giant, as well as FDA pressure over GLP-1 drugs and a drop in shares after discontinuing new product.
Americas
9 February 2026   The Swiss pharma giant moves to protect patents on its billion-dollar cancer therapy following an ANDA filing by a Canadian generics manufacturer.
Americas
6 February 2026   A Delhi High Court ruling signals more bad news for the Danish pharma giant in the same week that it lost nearly $50 billion in value.