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
4 March 2026   With an increase in ‘hallucinated’ case law cited as evidence in courts globally, what can legal practitioners—as well as providers of AI tools and platforms—do to help safeguard against this? Sarah Speight finds out.
Americas
2 March 2026   Law firms, companies and individuals have been shortlisted across a range of categories, which this year include new awards for excellence in PTAB, trade secrets and medical device work.
Americas
27 February 2026   The companies have agreed to dismiss their long-running patent fight over tumour-informed liquid biopsy technology, closing a high-stakes chapter in the fast-growing MRD testing market—while leaving the door open to future claims.