Three Patent Issues to Watch in 2015

07 January 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

Well, 2014 was a busy year in patent law, and it wasn’t all good news for patent holders. The Supreme Court made 35 USC § 101 a significant hurdle to patenting inventions across a broad swath of technologies (see my post on the Alice decision here), gave more teeth the definiteness standard of 35 USC § 112 (see my post on the Nautilus decision here) and did not resolve the divided infringement problem (see my post on the Akamai decision here). For its part, the Federal Circuit expanded the reach of the doctrine of obviousnesss-type double patenting, invalidated antibody claims defined functionally, scrutinized evidence of unexpected results, and questioned whether post-filing date evidence can be used to support non-obviousness. Now that all that is behind us, here are the biggest issues that I expect to be watching in 2015.

Patent Eligibility

I think patent eligibility will continue to be a major issue for patents in the chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical space in 2015. While the revised guidance the USPTO issued December 15, 2014, seems to be a step in the right direction after the drastic positions taken in the March 4, 2014 Guidance, it remains to be seen how examiners will apply the new analytical framework, especially in applications where they already have made 35 USC § 101 rejections under the old guidance. For inventions in the diagnostic and personalized medicine space, Federal Circuit decisions like that in the recent Myriad decision may be more problematic than the USPTO’s position.


March will mark five years since the effective date of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, and I believe that 2015 may bring the first approval of a biosimilar product, and the first patent litigation under the complex framework of 42 USC § 262(l). While several would-be biosimilar applicants have tried to avoid those convoluted procedures by bringing declaratory judgment actions before filing their biosimilar applications, the Federal Circuit has not found a sufficient case or controversy to support jurisdiction under those circumstances. However, now that at least one biosimilar application has been filed, we are bound to see some litigation under § 262(l), or at least litigation regarding its contours.

Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review

While the majority of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have not involved chemical, biotechnology, or pharmaceutical patents, I think more stakeholders in these fields will take advantage of this option for invalidating third party patents, especially as they see the high invalidation rates continue, and realize the impact that the lower burden of proof and the USPTO’s broader claim construction can have on an invalidity challenge.

In 2015, we might see the first bubble of patent applications filed after March 15, 2013 get granted, and it will be interesting to see how many are challenged in a Post Grant Review (PGR) proceeding. Stakeholders in the chemical, biotechnology, or pharmaceutical fields may be more interested in PGRs than IPRs, particularly where written description and enablement issues are more relevant to validity than prior art, but will have to act quickly to challenge patents within the nine-month post-grant window of 35 USC § 321(c).

We also should see decisions from the Federal Circuit regarding the USPTO’s interpretation and application of the IPR statute, such as whether the PTAB should apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claims, or should construe the claims as a district court would.

I will be following these and other patent issues in 2015, and look forward to sharing my insights in the months ahead.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services