{"id":2282,"date":"2018-12-07T12:21:55","date_gmt":"2018-12-07T17:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2282"},"modified":"2018-12-10T10:33:52","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T15:33:52","slug":"judicially-created-double-patenting-does-not-limit-statutory-patent-term-extension","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2282","title":{"rendered":"Judicially Created Double Patenting Does Not Limit Statutory Patent Term Extension"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures, LLC<\/a>, [2017-2284] (December 7, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that obviousness- type double patenting does not invalidate an otherwise  validly obtained patent term extension (PTE) under \u00a7156.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Ezra filed\u00a0an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) relating to
a generic version of Novartis\u2019s Gilenya\u00ae multiple sclerosis\u00a0drug, Novartis sued Ezra for infringement of\u00a0claims 9, 10, 35, 36,\u00a046, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229.\u00a0 Ezra responded by attacking the validity of the patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ezra first argued that Novartis violated \u00a7 156(c)(4) because, two patents were extended as the extension of the \u2019229 patent\u2019s term \u201ceffectively\u201d extended U.S. Patent No. 6,004,565\u2019s term as well, because the \u2019229 patent covers a compound necessary to practice the methods claimed by the \u2019565 patent.  Ezra argued that this violated its “right” to practice the ‘565 patent upon its expiration.  The Federal Circuit rejected this argument finding that \u00a7156 gives the patent owner discretion to select which of several patents to extend, and that additional words should not be read into the statute to limit this discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ezra also argued that\u00a0the\u00a0\u2019229 patent is invalid due to obviousness-type double\u00a0patenting because the term extension it received causes\u00a0the \u2019229 patent to expire after Novartis\u2019s allegedly patentably\u00a0indistinct \u2019565 patent.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0a straightforward reading of \u00a7156 mandates a\u00a0term extension so long as the other enumerated statutory requirements for a PTE are met.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit further noted that the difference in language for patent term adjustment (PTA) under\u00a0\u00a7154(b) and PTE under\u00a0\u00a7156\u00a0support the conclusion that a patent term extension\u00a0under \u00a7156 is not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit noted that obviousness-type double patenting is a \u201cjudge-made doctrine\u201d that is intended to prevent extension of a patent beyond a \u201cstatutory time limit,\u201d and declined Ezra’s invitation to use the judge-made doctrine to cut off a statutorily-authorized time extension.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures, LLC, [2017-2284] (December 7, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that obviousness- type double patenting does not invalidate an otherwise  validly obtained patent term extension (PTE) under \u00a7156. After Ezra filed\u00a0an … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-patent-term-extension-156"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2282"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2316,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2282\/revisions\/2316"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}