In the case of Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) concerning claim 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356 (the '356 patent). This patent was challenged based on the assertion that it was invalid due to ODP over two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,344,011 (the '011 patent) and 8,609,709 (the '709 patent). The district court initially ruled in favor of invalidity, determining that because the '356 patent expired after the '011 and '709 patents—despite sharing a common priority date—it violated the principles of ODP.
The Federal Circuit began its analysis by examining the historical context of ODP. The doctrine is designed to prevent inventors from unjustly extending the exclusivity of their patents by obtaining additional patents for inventions that are not sufficiently distinct from those already patented. Traditionally, ODP assessments relied heavily on the filing and issuance dates of the patents in question. However, the 1995 changes under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) altered this landscape by shifting the measurement of patent terms from issuance dates to filing dates, thereby complicating how ODP should be applied, especially in cases involving patent term adjustments (PTAs).
At the district court level, the decision was influenced by the precedent set in In re Cellect, where the Federal Circuit ruled that ODP should be evaluated based on the expiration dates of patents, particularly when one patent's term has been extended by a PTA. In this case, because the '356 patent had received a PTA that extended its expiration beyond that of the '011 and '709 patents, the district court found that it was invalid under the ODP doctrine. The court reasoned that the '356 patent's later expiration date improperly extended the period of exclusivity for the same invention covered by the earlier-expiring patents.
However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decision, providing a crucial clarification. The appellate court emphasized that the '356 patent was both the first-filed and first-issued patent in its family, specifically covering the core invention of eluxadoline. Given its status as the first granted patent in this family, the Federal Circuit held that it could not be invalidated for ODP based on later-filed, later-issued patents, even if those later patents had earlier expiration dates due to a lack of PTA. The court underscored that ODP should not be used to invalidate a patent where the patentee is not attempting to improperly extend the term of the later invention but is instead receiving the full term for the original invention as legally adjusted by the PTA.
In its analysis, the Federal Circuit also considered the precedents set by Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. and In re Cellect. In Gilead, the court had held that a later-issued, earlier-expiring patent could serve as an ODP reference against an earlier-issued, later-expiring patent. However, the Federal Circuit distinguished this case, noting that the principle applied differently here because the '356 patent was the first in time and had received a PTA due to delays in its prosecution. Similarly, while the Cellect case emphasized the importance of expiration dates post-PTA, the Federal Circuit clarified that Cellect did not control the outcome in a situation where the challenged patent was the first-filed and first-issued in its family.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit concluded that claim 40 of the '356 patent was not invalid for ODP over the '011 and '709 patents. The court determined that the '356 patent did not unjustifiably extend the term of exclusivity for the eluxadoline invention and that applying ODP in this manner would have undermined the legitimate benefits of PTAs as intended by Congress. This decision underscores the Federal Circuit's stance that while ODP remains a critical doctrine to prevent patent term extension through non-distinct patents, it must be applied with an understanding of the legislative intent behind patent term adjustments and the timing of patent filings and issuances.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.