This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
start [2024/04/23 10:08] – [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/ | 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/ | ||
- | On November 13, 2023, Cellect filed a petition for //en banc// rehearing, which has attracted several amici briefs, which raise some interesting points. | + | On November 13, 2023, Cellect filed a petition for //en banc// rehearing, which has attracted several amici briefs, which raise some interesting points. |
* [[po> | * [[po> |