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.
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
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 that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk
24 December 2025 John Squires has rewired the country’s patents system since becoming USPTO director—but which changes are most impactful? Sarah Speight explores.
22 December 2025 Biopharma company and two others have taken action against numerous defendants over proposed generic versions of Livmarli, Mirum’s core revenue driver.
17 December 2025 The proponents of a petition denied by the Supreme Court said it addressed a conflict that was significant “not just for the pharmaceutical industry, but for all stakeholders in our patent system”.