Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- start [2024/04/23 10:03] – [Patents invalidated by Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (posted 01/23/24)] len
+++ start [2024/04/23 10:09] (current) – [Patents invalidated by Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (posted 01/23/24)] len
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 The Federal Circuit rejected Cellect’s attempt to argue that ODP should not apply to patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(B) for the same reason that they don't apply to patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. § 156.  ((35 U.S.C. § 156 allows an applicant/patentee to extend a patent that covers a product whose market introduction is deleted due to the FDA approval process.))  The Court also addressed Cellect's other arguments and rejected each in turn, finding that the patents are invalid under obviousness-type double patenting and therefore unenforceable.
-:!: On November 13, 2023, Cellect filed a petition for //en banc// rehearing, which has attracted several amici briefs, which raise some interesting points.  On January 19, 2024, the request for rehearing was {{ :legal:double_patenting:cellect_en_banc_denial.pdf |deneied}}.
+On November 13, 2023, Cellect filed a petition for //en banc// rehearing, which has attracted several amici briefs, which raise some interesting points.  On January 19, 2024, the request for rehearing was {{ :legal:double_patenting:cellect_en_banc_denial.pdf |denied}}.
   * [[po>patent/2023/11/adjustment-rehearing-patenting.html|Summary, analysis, and comments]]