- Immunogen 23-1762.pdf

• Treatment of obviousness-type double patenting when parties agree it is coextensive with obviousness in the appeal.: Where the parties agree that the double-patenting issue rises and falls with the obviousness analysis and do not separately brief it, the court may affirm without separately addressing double patenting once obviousness is affirmed.

- Regeneron 24-1965.pdf

• Obviousness-type double patenting based on a related earlier-expiring reference patent.: A later patent is not invalid for ODP where differences between its claims and the reference patent’s claims—here, a specific 98% native-conformation stability requirement and a glycosylation requirement—are supported by findings that a skilled artisan would lack motivation and reasonable expectation of success to arrive at those differences; showing that the later limitation is an “additional property” or that the later claim is encompassed by/within the scope of the earlier genus claim does not, by itself, prove lack of patentable distinctness.