Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Government Defends 200-Year-Old ODP Doctrine

Introduction

The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) has long been a fundamental aspect of U.S. patent law, ensuring that inventors do not unjustly extend their patent monopolies by obtaining multiple patents for the same invention. The recent case of *Cellect v. Vidal* has reignited this debate, particularly in the context of Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) granted to compensate for delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This blog explores the implications of the Federal Circuit's decision and the U.S. Government's subsequent defense, providing insights into what this could mean for patent holders and the broader intellectual property landscape.

---

**Understanding the Issue: Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting**

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) were introduced by Congress to extend the term of a patent if the USPTO's delays cut into the patent's effective life. However, the *Cellect v. Vidal* decision brought to light a significant issue: does extending a patent's term through PTA increase the risk of invalidation under the ODP doctrine?

The Federal Circuit's decision confirmed that PTA could indeed trigger ODP issues, particularly when a later-expiring patent is seen as an improper extension of the patent monopoly. This ruling underscores the importance of strategic patent portfolio management, especially when dealing with multiple patents that share a common priority date.

**Government's Position: Defending the Federal Circuit’s Ruling**

In its brief opposing Cellect's petition for certiorari, the U.S. Government backed the Federal Circuit’s decision, emphasizing the historical roots and statutory support for applying ODP to PTA-extended patents. The Government framed the issue narrowly, focusing on whether the ODP doctrine applies when PTA causes a patent to extend beyond the expiration date of a related patent. This approach highlights the government's intent to preserve the balance between rewarding innovation and protecting public access to inventions after the patent term expires.

**Historical Context: ODP as an "Ancient" Doctrine**

The Government’s brief also draws upon historical precedent, dating back to the 1819 decision in *Odiorne v. Amesbury Nail Factory*. In this case, Justice Joseph Story established the principle that granting multiple patents for the same invention at different times would undermine the public's right to use the invention after the patent term. This historical perspective reinforces the view that ODP is not merely a judicial creation but a long-standing principle of patent law.

**The Impact of *Allergan* on the *Cellect* Decision**

The *Allergan USA v. MSN Labs* decision, issued after the certiorari petition was filed, significantly limits the impact of *Cellect*. In *Allergan*, the Federal Circuit clarified that ODP does not apply to first-filed, first-issued patents with extended PTA if the challenge is based on continuations sharing the same priority date. This ruling has alleviated some concerns about the potential for widespread invalidation of existing patents, although the Government maintains that ODP still applies in specific circumstances.

**Policy Considerations: Preventing Unjust Extensions of Patent Monopolies**

The Government argues that applying ODP to PTA-extended patents is consistent with the doctrine's purpose: preventing patent holders from obtaining unjustified extensions of their monopolies. While the patent holder in *Cellect* acted in good faith, the potential inequity lies with the public, which could be unfairly burdened by an extended series of patents covering the same invention.

**Conclusion**

The *Cellect v. Vidal* case underscores the ongoing tension between extending patent protection through PTA and the risk of invalidation under the ODP doctrine. For patent holders, this highlights the importance of carefully managing patent portfolios and considering the implications of PTA and terminal disclaimers. As the legal landscape evolves, staying informed and consulting with experienced intellectual property counsel will be crucial in navigating these complex issues.

If you have questions about how this ruling could affect your patent strategy, our law firm is here to provide expert guidance. Contact us today to discuss how we can help protect your intellectual property and ensure compliance with the latest legal developments.

Gayatri Gupta