A Second Look at the Innovation Act Obviousness Type Double Patenting Statute

26 February 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

When the Innovation Act first was introduced, I was skeptical of the proposed obviousness-type double patenting statute. I did not understand why some thought that patents that fall under the First-Inventor-To-File provisions of the American Invents Act would not be subject to the existing judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, and I thought that the proposed statute was both too broad and too narrow if it was intended to codify existing OTDP jurisprudence for First-Inventor-To-File patents. Now that the Innovation Act has been reintroduced, I am taking a second look at the proposed statute, particularly in view of the recent Federal Circuit decisions that expanded (or misapplied) the judicially-created doctrine.

The Proposed Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Statute

The Innovation Act would create 35 USC § 106 as a new statutory provision for obviousness-type double patenting:

106. Prior art in cases of double patenting.
A claimed invention of a patent issued under section 151 (referred to as the ‘first patent’) that is not prior art to a claimed invention of another patent (referred to as the ‘second patent’) shall be considered prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of the claimed invention of the second patent under section 103 if—
(1) the claimed invention of the first patent was effectively filed under section 102(d) on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent;
(2) either—
(A) the first patent and second patent name the same individual or individuals as the inventor; or
(B) the claimed invention of the first patent would constitute prior art to the claimed invention of the second patent under section 102(a)(2) if an exception under section 102(b)(2) were deemed to be inapplicable and the claimed invention of the first patent was, or were deemed to be, effectively filed under section 102(d) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the second patent; and
(3) the patentee of the second patent has not disclaimed the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent.


 (4) EXCLUSIVE RULE.—A patent subject to section 106 of title 35, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall not be held invalid on any nonstatutory, double-patenting ground based on a patent described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. 100 note).

(5) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to a patent or patent application only if both the first and second patents described in section 106 of title 35, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), are patents or patent applications that are described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. 100 note).

Key Points About OTDP Under the Innovation Act

According to its legislative history, the basic purpose of the statute is to provide that the claims of a first patent can qualify as prior art under § 103 against claims of a second patent with a common inventor or common owner and an effective filing date on or after that of the first patent. Parsing through the statutory language, I note these differences vis-à-vis the judicially-created doctrine (“non-statutory OTDP”):

  • Te statute would apply only when the first patent does not otherwise qualify as prior art against the second patent, e.g., when the first patent was not published before the effective filing date of the second patent.  This is in contrast to non-statutory OTDP, where a patent can qualify as a prior art reference and its granted claims can be used in an OTDP rejection.
  • Only a patent with the same or earlier effective filing date could be used to make a rejection under the statute. This is in contrast to non-statutory OTDP, where the claims of a later-filed patent can be used in an OTDP rejection.
  • By invoking § 103, OTDP would be evaluated under a Graham/KSR analysis, rather than the common law “patentably indistinct” analysis, and may abrogate the applicability of In re Clay and Takeda v. Doll to OTDP cases.
  • By invoking § 103, the statute would make OTDP an issue that could be raised in an Inter Partes review proceeding.
  • The statute may permit the use of a Terminal Disclaimer to avoid OTDP without requiring the patents to be commonly owned, as long as the owner of the second patent disclaims “the rights to enforce the second patent independently from, and beyond the statutory term of, the first patent.”
  • A patent subject to the new statute would not be subject to non-statutory OTDP rejections based on First-Inventor-To-File patents, but presumably could be subject to such rejections based on First-To-Invent patents.

What’s Not to Like About Section 106?

While many of the points highlighted above are more favorable to patent owners than the judicially-created doctrine, there are still a few aspects of proposed new § 106 that raise concerns.

Interplay Between § 106 and § 102(a)(2)

In order to provide for OTDP between patents based on common ownership, § 106(2)(B) invokes§ 102(a)(2), but § 102(a)(2) relates to more than just common ownership.  Indeed, common ownership is governed by § 102(a)(2)(C). The other portions of § 102(a)(2) relate to disclosures in earlier-filed application that were obtained from the inventor (§ 102(a)(2)(A)) or that do not qualify as prior art because of an earlier public disclosure or derived from by the inventor (§ 102(a)(2)(B)).

By invoking § 102(a)(2)(A), does § 106 permit an earlier filed application by A that claims subject matter obtained from B to be cited against B’s application in an OTDP rejection?

Limited Effective Date

I still do not understand why some thought that First-Inventor-To-File patents would not be subject to judicially-created OTDP, so I do not understand why proposed new § 106 should only apply to First-Inventor-To-File patents. I also do not understand why the new statute only should apply where both the first and the second patents are First-Inventor-To-File patents, and why the exclusivity of the new statute only should apply for OTDP based First-Inventor-To-File patents.

It is my understanding that the Innovation Act may garner bipartisan support and make its way through Congress. I hope others take a second look at proposed new § 106 and address these issues before it becomes law.

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.


Seventh Circuit Confronts Wisconsin’s “Risk-Contribution” Theory in Reversing $6 Million Lead Paint Verdict
06 May 2021
Wisconsin Appellate Law
It is Not Just Auto, Supply Chains are Stressed
06 May 2021
Dashboard Insights
DOL Rolls Back Trump Administration’s Independent Contractor Rule
05 May 2021
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
190 Across the Finish Line: CFTC Adopts New Bankruptcy Rules for FCMS and DCOS
05 May 2021
The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products, Futures & Derivatives Law Report
Home Care 100
27-30 June 2021
Marco Island, FL
2021 AANP National Conference
15 June - 31 August 2021
Virtual Conference
HCCA Orange County Regional Healthcare Compliance Conference
11 June 2021
Virtual Conference
Rx Pricing and Reimbursement Summit
24-25 May 2021
Virtual Conference