Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Upon issuance, can a later-issued (but earlier-expiring) patent qualify as a double patenting reference against an already issued (but later-expiring) commonly owned patent of the same inventor? In Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2014 WL 1584450 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2014), the Federal Circuit held that it could.
The court held that although a terminal disclaimer could preserve the validity of the earlier-issuing patent, it would shorten that earlier-issuing expiration date to the expiration date of the later-issuing patent. Had the later-issuing patent never issued, the earlier-issuing patent would have enjoyed its full term. Nevertheless, the majority found a basis for this seemingly unusual result. Chief Judge Rader's dissent characterized the decision as new judicially created grounds of double patenting.
Background
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?