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
9 June 2026   A unanimous SCOTUS ruling is being hailed as a major win for Hikma, and for delivering some welcome clarity. Experts tell Marisa Woutersen how its implications could affect pharma patent strategy across the sector.
Americas
8 June 2026   Nexus Pharmaceuticals is knocked back by the US Court of Appeals, which upholds a district court finding that it infringed a rival’s patents.
Americas
4 June 2026   Justices refuse to place generic drug makers “between a rock and a hard place,” in a landmark ruling clarifying induced patent infringement in pharma.