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
10 July 2026 Harbour’s trial counsel shares the strategy behind the company’s $20m win, revealing how a highly technical patent dispute became a case about credibility as much as science.
9 July 2026 Separate lawsuits target Indian and Taiwanese pharma companies as Exelixis seeks to keep rival cabozantinib products off the US market until key patents expire.
2 July 2026 A federal court has ruled in a dispute between a clinical trial technology company and a psychedelic drug developer over allegations of trade secret misuse during a bidding process.