Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions: Leveraging Recent Decisions and USPTO Rule Changes

Transcription

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions: Leveraging Recent Decisions and USPTO Rule Changes THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Thomas L. Irving, Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C. Charles E. Van Horn, Senior Counsel, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C. Jill K. MacAlpine, Ph.D., Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 1.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 2.

4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

5 Disclaimer These materials have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the authors and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (including Finnegan Europe LLP, and Fei Han Foreign Legal Affairs Law Firm) cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with these authors or Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (including Finnegan Europe LLP, and Fei Han Foreign Legal Affairs Law Firm). While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed

6 Patent Term Adjustment and AIA AIA SEC. 9: A patentee s challenge to the USPTO s PTA calculation that is filed on or after September 16, 2011, must be filed with the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of Virginia ( ED VA ), instead of the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia ( D DC ). 6

7 Patents Eligible for PTA 37 C.F.R Extension to patent term for examination delay for utility patent applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, and before May 29, Two rules for applications filed on or after May 29, 2000: Grounds for adjustment of patent term due to examination delay under the Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999 (original applications, other than designs, filed on or after May 29, 2000). [Editor Note: Applies to any patent granted on or after January 14, 2013*] [*The changes to para. (a)(1) and the heading of para. (b) effective Apr. 1, 2013 apply to any patent granted on or after Jan. 14, 2013] (pre ) Grounds for adjustment of patent term due to examination delay under the Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999 (original applications, other than designs, filed on or after May 29, 2000). [Editor Note: Not applicable to patents granted on or after January 14, 2013.]

8 Importance of Patent Term Adjustment Nature Biotechnology, 29(9): (Sept. 2011) 8

9 Three Types of Patent Term Adjustment 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)-(C) A Guarantee / A Delay Guarantee of prompt [PTO] responses : 1 day of patent term extension for each day of delay due to the failure of the Patent and Trademark Office to meet specific deadlines in (i)-(iv) ( ); B Guarantee / B Delay Guarantee of no more than 3- year application pendency : 1 day of patent term extension for each day beyond 3 years from filing until the patent issues (subject to certain exclusions); C Guarantee / C Delay Guarantee or adjustments for delays due to interferences, secrecy orders, and appeals : 1 day for each day of the pendency of the proceeding, order, or review, but only for successful appeals. 9

10 Example of A-Delay Univ. of Mass. v. Kappos, 903 F.Supp.2d 77 (DDC, Nov. 9, 2012) File application Feb. 4, month April 4, 2006 First Office Action July 13, Years Feb. 4, 2008 Second Office Action Feb. 21, 2008 A-Delay 223 days First OA was a restriction requirement. PTO and UMass agreed there should be new restriction requirement. UMass argued that A-Delay is 688 days (PTA should include 223 days between 1 st and 2 nd OA because the first OA was incorrect). District Court: No. A-delay clock stopped when first OA issued. No requirement that the first OA be correct; no intention to vacate first OA. A-delay = 465 days (days between 14-months (April 4, 2006) and first OA (July 13, 2007). 10

11 EXAMPLE OF B-DELAY Mayo Clinic Found. v. Iancu, 309 F.Supp.3d 425 (E.D.Va. April 24, 2018), appeal filed June 1, 2018 File application April 9, 2009 Final rejection Oct. 14, 2010 RCE filed Sept. 14, 2011 Amended RCE Dec. 1, 2011 Interference declared Feb. 9, 2012 Interference terminated April 23, 2014 OA June 30, 2014 Notice of Allowance Nov. 3, 2014 Patent issued Mar. 17, 2015 PTO: PTA 604 days. 898 A-Delay + 0 B-Delay C-Delay 294 applicant delay and 805 overlap of A and C Delays. No B-Delay because time from Sept. 14/11 to Nov. 3/14 = Subtracted from the total time of filing to issuance of 2169 days = 1022, which did not exceed 3 years (1095). Applicant: Should count B-Delay of 119 days (total PTA 723). RCE ended when interference was declared. Time from termination of interference Apr 23/14 to Notice of Allowance Nov 3/14 should not have been excluded. District court: Upheld PTO calculation. Because prosecution was not closed and examination on the merits continued until November 3, 2014, the time from the end of the interference until November 3 is clearly time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant as defined by Novartis. 11

12 C-Delays Delays Due To Interferences and Appeals C-Delays: 154(b)(1)(C), Issue of patent delayed due to interferences, secrecy orders, and appeals. Appellate review by PTAB or a federal court in which the review revers[ed] an adverse determination of patentability[.] Old: accrues from date Notice of Appeal filed. Now: accrues from date jurisdiction over the application passes to the Board until date of a final Board /court decision in favor of the applicant. 12 Change applicable to any application in which a notice of allowance is issued after September 16, 2012, and any patent issuing thereon (and any timely reconsideration request after Sept. 16, 2012). 37 C.F.R (e)

13 C-Delays Delays Due To Interferences and Appeals New starting point of accrues from date jurisdiction over the application passes to the Board Defined as when reply brief is filed or time to file has expired. Removes many months of PTA from C-Delay calculation. Though depending on circumstances, B-Delay may be accruing until the date jurisdiction passes to the Board. Note, failure to file an Appeal Brief within 3 months from filing of Notice of Appeal will be deemed applicant delay

14 Appeal Cases Filing Date 11/05/2004 First appeal Filed 12/06/2006 Three Appeal decision Years successful from (decision on at least Filing one claim reversed) 11/05/ /04/ Year Deadline for PTO Action C Delay = 1246 days, but only get it if appeal successful. Notes: No possibility of B delay because filed appeal before 3-year clock. Days from PTA could be deducted for applicant delay if come under list of no-no s 14

15 Appeal Cases Filing Date 11/05/2004 Three Years + 1 day from Filing First appeal Filed Appeal decision successful (decision on at least one claim reversed) 11/06/ /18/ /04/ Year Deadline for PTO Action Proper B Delay = 408 days PTO C Delay = 503 days Notes: B-delay C-delay 503 (if appeal successful) = 911 days If appeal unsuccessful, no C-delay, so PTA would be just B-delay of 408 days. Days from PTA could be deducted for applicant delay if come under list of no-no s 15

16 Limitations on Patent Term Adjustment ( 154(b)(2)) No overlap/double-counting. No patent, the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date, may be adjusted beyond the expiration date specified in the terminal disclaimer. Applicant-caused delay will reduce adjustment. failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. Arqule, Inc. v. Kappos, No. 1:10-cv (D.D.C. June 22, 2011) (weekends/holidays no longer counted against applicant delay). Also USPTO list of no-no s at 37 C.F.R

17 37 C.F.R Subsection (c) Reduction of period of adjustment of patent term (c) Circumstances that constitute a failure of the applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application also include the following circumstances, which will result in the following reduction of the period of adjustment set forth in to the extent that the periods are not overlapping: (1) Suspension of action under at the applicant s request, ; (2) Deferral of issuance of a patent under ; (3) Abandonment of the application or late payment of the issue fee ; 17 (4) Failure to file a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment or to revive an application within two months from the mailing date of a notice of abandonment ;

18 37 C.F.R Subsection (c) Reduction of period of adjustment of patent term (con t) (5) Conversion of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) to a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5) ; (6) Submission of a preliminary amendment or other preliminary paper less than one month before the mailing of an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 that requires the mailing of a supplemental Office action or notice of allowance ; (7) Submission of a reply having an omission ( 1.135(c)) ; (8) Submission of a supplemental reply or other paper, other than a supplemental reply or other paper expressly requested by the examiner, after a reply has been filed ; 18

19 37 C.F.R Subsection (c) Reduction of period of adjustment of patent term (con t) (9) Submission of an amendment or other paper after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, other than a decision designated as containing a new ground of rejection under 41.50(b) of this title or statement under 41.50(c) of this title, or a decision by a Federal court, less than one month before the mailing of an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 that requires the mailing of a supplemental Office action or supplemental notice of allowance, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in shall be reduced by the lesser of: (i) The number of days, if any, beginning on the day after the mailing date of the original Office action or notice of allowance and ending on the mailing date of the supplemental Office action or notice of allowance; or (ii) Four months; 19

20 Subsection (C) Reduction: More from USPTO List of no-no s at 37 C.F.R (10) Submission of an amendment under or other paper, other than a request for continued examination in compliance with 1.114, after a notice of allowance has been given or mailed ; (11) Failure to file an appeal brief in compliance with of this chapter within three months from the date on which a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was filed under 35 U.S.C. 134 and of this chapter ; (12) Submission of a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) after any notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 has been mailed ; (13) Failure to provide an application in condition for examination as defined in paragraph(f) of this section within eight months from either the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application ; (14) Further prosecution via a continuing application, in which case the period of adjustment set forth in shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent.

21 Subsection (d) 37 C.F.R (d)(1) A paper containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution, and a request for continued examination in compliance with with no submission other than an information disclosure statement in compliance with 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (, if the paper or request for continued examination is accompanied by a statement that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement: (i) Was first cited in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or from the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement; or (ii) Is a communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. (2) The thirty-day period set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is not extendable. 21

22 Subsections (e) and (f) of 37 C.F.R (e) The submission of a request under 1.705(c) for reinstatement of reduced patent term adjustment will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application. (f) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is in condition for examination when the application includes a specification, including at least one claim and an abstract, and has papers in compliance with 1.52, drawings, any English translation, a sequence listing, the inventor s oath or declaration or an application data sheet containing the information specified in 1.63(b), the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination, any certified copy of the previously filed application required by 1.57(a), and any application size fee required by the Office under 1.16(s). An international application is in condition for examination when [list of requirements] An application shall be considered as having papers in compliance with 1.52, drawings (if any) in compliance with 1.84, and a sequence listing in compliance with through (if applicable) for purposes of this paragraph on the filing date of the latest reply (if any) correcting the papers, drawings, or sequence listing that is prior to the date of mailing of either an action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151, whichever occurs first. 22

23 Applicable Dates of 37 C.F.R (con t) Para. (c)(12) applicable only to applications in which a request for continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 132(b) and 37 CFR is filed on or after Mar. 10, For para. (c)(12) in effect for applications in which all requests for continued examination were filed prior to March 10, 2015, see ( thru ). Paras. (c)(11), (c)(13), (c)(14) and (f) applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and to international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, For paras. (c)(11) and (c)(13) in effect for applications filed before (and international applications in which the national stage commenced before) December 18, 2013, and in which a notice of appeal was filed on or after Sept. 17, 2012, see ( thru ). For para. (c)(11) in effect for applications in which there was no notice of appeal filed on or after Sept. 17, 2012, see (pre ). 23

24 Applicable Dates of 37 C.F.R (con t) Para. (e) applicable only to applications in which a notice of allowance was mailed on or after April 1, For para. (e) in effect for applications in which there was no notice of allowance mailed on or after April 1, 2013, see (pre ). Para. (c)(10)(ii) applicable only to patent applications in which a notice of appeal was filed on or after Sept. 17, For para. (c)(10)(ii) in effect for applications in which there was no notice of appeal filed on or after Sept. 17, 2012, see (pre ).] See, 78 Fed. Reg. 19,416 (Apr. 1, 2013)(adopted as final, 79 Fed. Reg. 27,755 (May 15, 2014); 78 Fed. Reg. 62,368 (Oct. 21, 2013); 80 Fed. Reg. 1,346 (Jan. 9, 2015). 24

25 37 C.F.R (f): Calculating PTA PTA will run from the expiration date of the patent[.] Sum of the A Delay, B Delay, and C Delay, to the extent that such periods are not overlapping, less the sum of the periods [for applicant delay]. Overlap is calculated by counting delays occurring on the same calendar days but only counting those days once. Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 25 Before Wyeth, USPTO interpreted statute as only allowing greater of A-delays or B-delays, not both. Now, it is A-delays plus B-delays, minus overlapping days.

26 Calculating PTA: Add PTE 37 C.F.R (f): Patent Term Extension ( PTE ) is in addition to PTA. 35 U.S.C. 156(a): The term of a patent which claims a product, a method of using a product, or a method of manufacturing a product shall be extended in accordance with this section from the original expiration date of the patent, which shall include any patent term adjustment granted under section154(b)[.] 26

27 RCE Cases USPTO Interpretation of 37 C.F.R (b)(1): that any time consumed by an RCE is excluded from the B Delay determination, even if it occurs after the three-year window has closed; and time consumed by an RCE extends until the issuance of the patent. In Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, 2012 WL (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2012) and Novartis AG v. Kappos, 2012 WL (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2012), patent owner argued USPTO improperly cuts off B Delay when an RCE is first filed after the PTO has failed to issue a patent within three years of the application s filing date. 27

28 Time Between Allowance and Issuance Although not addressed in district court decision, in its complaint, Novartis argued that even if B-Delay stopped accruing upon filing a RCE, the PTO's calculation of B- Delay still improperly excluded the time between the Notice of Allowance and Issuance. Continued examination of the applications corresponding to the RCE-Affected Patents concluded on the date the notices of allowance were mailed. B-Delay should accrue from the date the PTO mailed the notices of allowance for these patents through the date of issuance of these patents. 28

29 But Wait a Minute! Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, 919 F.Supp.2d 689 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2013)(Exelixis II) Judge Brinkema took a different view of the statutory language, and denied Exelixis motion to correct the PTO s calculation of PTA. 29

30 Jan. 15, 2014 The Federal Circuit Exelixis I at the Federal Circuit, Exelixis, Inc. v. Lee, 2014 WL (Fed. Cir. 2014) Vacate and remand. 30 "We address those two interpretations in our decision today in Novartis AG v. Lee, No (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2014). Based on the ruling in Novartis, we vacate the judgments as to patent term adjustment for the 436 and 622 patents in this case and remand for redetermination of the proper adjustments in accordance with Novartis.

31 Jan. 15, 2014 The Federal Circuit Novartis AG v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014) PTA determination (reversed-in-part) no adjustment time is available for any time in continued examination, even if the continued examination was initiated more than three calendar years after the application s filing. the patent term adjustment time should be calculated by determining the length of the time between application and patent issuance, then subtracting any continued examination time (and other time identified in (i), (ii), and (iii) of (b)(1)(b)) and determining the extent to which the result exceeds three years. Such a reading ensures that applicants recover for any delay[s] due to the failure of the [PTO], without allowing the applicant to recover for any time consumed by continued examination, as the statute requires. Id. 154(b)(1)(B)(i). 31

32 Jan. 15, 2014 The Federal Circuit Novartis AG v. Lee (con t)...the correct interpretation of the statute is the PTO s view that time spent in a continued examination does not deplete the PTO s allotment of three years for application processing before a resulting patent has its term extended, no matter when the continued examination begins. 32

33 Affirmed Time After Allowance Until Issuance Should Be Counted Novartis AG v. Lee (con t) 33 While we thus disagree with Novartis on its first 154(b)(1)(B) issue, we agree with Novartis on its second 154(b)(1)(B) issue. We reject the PTO s view that the time after allowance, until issuance, is time consumed by continued examination and so is excluded from adjustments given to the patentee. Such time from allowance to issuance undisputedly would count toward the PTO s three-year allotment in a case not involving a continued examination. There is no basis for distinguishing a continued examination case. In the present case, time after allowance was not time caused by the continued examination. Because the PTO applied the contrary view in calculating the patent term adjustment for the 155, 518, and 631 patents, those calculations must be corrected.

34 Time From Allowance To Issue Where PTA did not include days between allowance and issuance, file request that the time from allowance to issue be included in B-delay. As pointed out by Susan J. Mack and Azy S. Kokabi, Sughrue Mion PLLC in IPLaw 360 article, Calculating Patent Term Adjustment Post-Novartis (Feb. 13, 2014): for patents issuing on or after Jan. 14, 2013, all applications for PTA must be filed within seven months of the issue date (two months from the grant of the patent plus an additional five months with payment of extension of time fees). 34 Novartis decision Jan. 15, 2014, so includes any patent issuing on or after June 15, 2013.

35 Affirmed Tolling Decision Novartis AG v. Lee (con t) 180-day clock applies to challenges of final PTA determinations. Novartis did not file suit within 180 days of denial of reconsideration, so Novartis claims for 15 patents untimely. General tolling rule applies; see Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. v. Rea, 928 F.Supp.2d 102 (D.D.C. 2013) and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Rea, 2013 WL (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2013), aff d, 791 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 2016 WL (U.S. Mar. 28, 2016). 35

36 Further Rule Changes in 2015 Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in View of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee. 80 Fed. Reg. 1,346 (January 9, 2015). 36

37 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, 778 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Restriction requirement issued November 18, 2009 Gilead responded on February 18, 2010 Gilead filed a supplemental IDS on April 16, 2010 (before Office Action). USPTO assessed 57 days of applicant delay based on time between Gilead s initial reply to restriction requirement and filing supplemental IDS. 37 DC: Granted summary judgment in favor of USPTO.

38 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Gilead Sciences (con t) FC: Affirmed. this court finds that a reasonable interpretation of the statute is that Congress intended to sanction not only applicant conduct or behavior that result in actual delay, but also those having the potential to result in delay irrespective of whether such delay actually occurred. 38

39 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, 790 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 39 Mohsenzadeh filed the original patent application on July 6, USPTO issued restriction requirement on Sept. 21, more than 5 years later (A-delay). Patent issued June 2010 with PTA including 1476 days for delay in issuing restriction requirement. Divisionals claiming other methods filed Jan. 8, 2010, issued without PTA. Mohsenzadeh asked for PTA of 1476 days on each, because each claimed same priority date as the original application. USPTO refused.

40 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Mohsenzadeh (con t) 40 District court: Granted summary judgment to USPTO. FC: Affirmed. A patent is only entitled to PTA for delay in the prosecution of the application from which the patent directly issued, not the application from which it derived priority. Section 154(b)(1)(A) an application limited to the original application. The language of the provision of the patent term adjustment statute at issue... clearly shows that Congress intended delay in the prosecution of an application to be restored to a single patent, the patent issuing directly from that application

41 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Lee, 791 F.3d 1373(Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 2016 WL (U.S. Mar. 28, 2016) 41 Feb. 2010, USPTO adopted Optional Interim Procedure for patents issuing between Aug. 5, 2009 and March 2, File petition for reconsideration up to 180 days after patent issuance, as long as sole basis for reconsideration was that PTA calculated pre-wyeth. Two Daiichi patents issued prior to Aug. 5, 2009, but Daiichi argued should be eligible for recalculation under the new standard, which it said would have added at least 321 days to both patents. USPTO denied petition. DC: Granted judgment to USPTO. FC: Affirmed. USPTO did not abuse discretion.

42 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Daiichi (con t) DC: Agreed USPTO should recalculate PTA of the one patent eligible for Optional Interim Procedure (patent granted within 180 days of March 2, 2010). Remanded optional interim procedure patent for recalculation from 86 to 503 days. But this patent terminally disclaimed over the two ineligible patents. 42

43 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Daiichi (con t) Daiichi amended complaint. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4)(A) s 180-day limit for judicial review does not apply to challenges of final PTA determinations (only initial determinations); Even if 180-day limit applies, should be equitably tolled because Daiichi relied on USPTO 2004 Notice and if promptly sought administrative and judicial review when district court decided Wyeth. PTO s use of 180-day limit for administrative review violates the APA. 43

44 44 Federal Circuit PTA Decisions Daiichi (con t) FC: Affirmed. USPTO acted within its discretion to adopt 180-day limit. Denying requests for reconsideration of PTA filed more than 180 days after patent issuance was not an abuse of discretion. All patents issuing before Interim Procedure cutoff date treated the same. Refusal to suspend the 180-day limit was not arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law.

45 A-DELAY Pfizer v. Lee, 811 F.3d 466 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Newman dissenting) DC: Granted summary judgment in favor of the USPTO on calculation of PTA. FC: Affirmed. A-Delay stops accruing when the PTO issued original restriction requirement. Satisfied statutory notice requirement. 45 initial restriction requirement sufficiently informed the applicants of the grounds for rejection and clearly defined the invention groups, such that the applicants could and in fact did determine into which group the omitted claims should be classified.

46 A-DELAY Actelion Pharm, Ltd. v. Matal, 881 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Actelion failed to check the checkbox corresponding to an express request to begin national examination procedures, though it did include a statement soliciting early examination. DC: Agreed with the USPTO regarding a patent term adjustment determination. FC: Affirmed. 46 Although use of the USPTO form is optional, and although checking the checkbox is not the only way to make a request for early entry, Actelion s statement was too generic and ambiguous to make its intentions clear.

47 Post-Gilead District Court Supernus Pharms., Inc. and United Therapeutics v. Lee, Case No. 1:16-cv U.S. Pat. No Osmotic Drug Delivery System Listed in Orange Book for Orenitram (treprostinil) Extended Release Tablets. Supernus filed APA action challenging USPTO s PTA determination. 47 PTA should be changed from 1386 to 2032 days; and USPTO erred in applying 37 C.F.R (c)(8) and Gilead v. Lee, 778 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(Gilead II).

48 Post-Gilead District Court 646 days disputed U.S. applicatio n filed April 27, 2006 Int l applicatio n filed April 27, 2006 USPTO Final Rejection Aug. 20, 2010 RCE, IDS, amendme nt and remarks Feb. 22, 2011 European patent granted Oct. 13, 2011 EPO Communi cation of Oppositio n Aug. 21, 2012 Foreign attorney letter about Oppositio n Sept. 11, 2012 Submitte d IDS to USPTO Nov. 29, 2012 USPTO Office Action Sept. 10, 2013 Response to Office Action Jan. 10, 2014 USPTO Notice of Allowanc e Feb. 4, 2014 U.S. patent issued June 10, 2014 USPTO published patent showing PTA of 1,260 days. Patentee filed request for reconsideration to revise to 2,030 days. PTA reduction of 646 days for applicant delay improper (from date of RCE to date of IDS triggered by EPO Communication) Entitled to 126 additional days under 154(b)(1)(B). USPTO recalculated and awarded the 126 days (total 1386) but rejected Patentee s request to restore 646 days of PTA in view of Gilead II. Patentee s second request for reconsideration denied. 48

49 Supernus Arguments If had not filed the Nov. 29/2012 IDS, patent would have been entitled to 2,032 days of PTA. If had filed Nov. 29/2012 IDS after OA issued on Sept. 10, 2013, patent would have been entitled to file 2,032 days of PTA. Alleged correct PTA is 2,032 days (1,386 days plus 646 days of A Delay) Applicant did not fail to engage in reasonable efforts for any period of time. At most, the applicant could only be considered to have failed to engaged in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution for 49 days ^the period of time between the receipt of the EPO Communication on September 11, 2012, and the date that the applicant filed the IDS triggered by the EPO Communication, November 29,2012, less the thirty-day grace period to make such a filing without loss of PTA. at least the 546 days prior to the date of the EPO Communication attributable solely to the PTO s delay in prosecuting the RCE (A Delay) 49 Entitled to PTA beyond 546 days because PTO s decision was arbitrary and capricious

50 Supernus Arguments (con t) Inappropriate to cite 1.704(c)(8), which does not address IDS filed after RCE but before first OA following an RCE; Improper reliance on Gilead II (submission of a supplemental IDS after filing response to an election or restriction requirement constituted a failure to engage in reasonable effort to conclude prosecution). 50

51 DC Upheld USPTO PTA Calculation Supernus Pharms., Inc. and United Therapeutics v. Lee, Case No. 1:16-cv (ED Va. Oct. 18, 2016) DC: Granted USPTO s motion for summary judgment. Gilead forecloses Supernus claim that 37 C.F.R (c)(8) is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Supernus did not show 1.704(d)(1) inappropriately construed the statute. Also, Supernus failed to assert argument that 1.704(d)(1) was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law during administrative review. Supernus failed to show government taking in violation of 5 th Amendment. 51

52 DC Decision (con t) USPTO Rule 704 delineates various circumstances that per se constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts [.] 37 C.F.R (c)(8): Submission of a supplemental reply or other paper; other than a supplemental reply or other paper expressly requested by the examiner after a reply has been filed[.] 37 C.F.R (d)(1) safe harbor if file IDS within 30 days of receiving new material from either (1) a foreign patent office; or, (2) the PTO itself. 52

53 DC Decision (con t) Federal Circuit in Gilead upheld 37 C.F.R (c)(8) as a reasonable interpretation of the [PTA] statute[.] Congress intended to sanction not only applicant conduct or behavior that result in actual delay, but also those having the potential to result in delay irrespective of whether such delay actually occurred. Supernus filed an IDS after filing an RCE. The fact that Plaintiffs filed an IDS to comply with their duty of candor owed to the PTO does not change the notion that the IDS filed was a supplemental paper filed in the absence of a request from the PTO. Such a filing forces a patent examiner to go back and review the applicant again, while still trying to meet his or her timeliness obligations under 154. [N]othing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable about reducing PTA in light of an IDS that contains information from a foreign patent office, given that 1.704(d)91) allows an applicant to file such an IDS without penalty if filed during the state 30 day grace period. 53

54 DC Decision (con t) the PTA statute does not require the PTO to make any sort of particularized determination of PTA[.] 1.704(c)(8) applies squarely to this case[.] Plaintiffs claim is foreclosed by Gilead. 54

55 55 DC Decision (con t) Plaintiffs neglected to file their IDS within the 30 day grace period delineated in 1.704(d)(1) no matter whether the clock started when the communication was received by the European attorney (Aug. 22, 2012) or forwarded to US counsel (Sept. 11, 2012). Supernus filed IDS on Nov. 29, thirty day grace period presented more than a sufficient amount of time for Plaintiffs to file the IDS in a timely fashion (d)(1) is a reasonable interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(i). The fact that an IDS may be filed for timely purposes of 37 C.F.R and still be untimely for 1.704(c)(8) and 1.704(d)(1) purposes does not reflect an inconsistency The PTO is entitled to make this type of a policy decision.

56 DC Decision (con t) Also, Supernus failed to raise arbitrary and capricious argument with respect to 1.704(d)(1) during administrative review -> waived. No 5 th Amendment violation. it was only Plaintiffs failure to comply with the 30 day grace period that prevented Plaintiffs from securing additional patent term adjustment[.] Appeal filed Dec. 24, 2016, Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, Case No Oral argument Dec. 4, No decision as of Sept. 25,

57 Statutory Language 35 USC 154 (b) (2) Limitations. (A) In general. To the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed. (B) Disclaimed term. No patent the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date may be adjusted under this section beyond the expiration date specified in the disclaimer. 57

58 Replacement Terminal Disclaimer Example 1: U.S. Application No. 10/883,042, now U.S. Patent No. 7,084,302 Terminal Disclaimer filed on Feb. 17, 2006, which includes the following language: 58

59 Replacement Terminal Disclaimer Language Example 2: U.S. Application No. 13/616,887, now U.S. Patent No. 8,980,881 Terminal Disclaimer filed on Oct. 30, 2014, which includes the following language (effective to avoid 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(B)?): 59

60 Further Proposed Language For Replacement TD In the event that any patent issued from the subject application gets an extension of patent term by patent term adjustment, the owner does not disclaim the extension of the patent term based on the patent term adjustment, as the term of any patent granted on the instant application has not been disclaimed beyond a specific date. 60

61 Patent Term Adjustment Example 1 14 month Years Overlap 206 days no PTA accruing after filing RCE B-Delay 164 days File appl B-Delay 982 ( ) Applicant Delays 616 (not shown) C-Delay 0 Non-Final = = 1036 days (2.8 years) File RCE A-Delay 876 days B-Delay Not. of 818 days Allow and paid issue fee A-Delay 876 Non-overlapping USPTO delays 1652 Issues PTA lost post-rce = 815 (2.2 years; from 8/21/07 to 11/15/09))(no PTA accrues after filing RCE) 61 Note: PTE, if any, is added to PTA.

62 Patent Term Adjustment Example 2 Overlap 218 days cuts off B Delay C-Delay accrues after Reply Brief filed 14 month Years File RCE File Reply Not. of Allow B-Delay 31days File Appl Non-Final A-Delay 888 days B-Delay 443 days Notice of Appeal C-Delay 675 days Favorable Appeal Decision Issues No C-Delay if appeal decision unfavorable. A Delay 888 Non-overlapping USPTO delays 1788 B Delay 474( ) Applicant Delays 13 (not shown) C Delay 675 (appeal win) = = 1806 days (4.9 years) 62 Note: PTE, if any, is added to PTA.

63 PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT EXAMPLE 3 14 month Years A-Delay and B-Delay overlap 156 days + 12 days = 168 days B-Delays 1413 days Unfavorable appeal outcome means lose C-Delay File Appl A-Delays 838 days Non-Final Notice of Appeal Non-Final Notice of Appeal Reply Brief C-Delay 871 days reopen prosecution; no decision in Appeal, so no C-Delay accrues, but no issuance so B-Delay clock is still ticking Favorable Issues Appeal Decision Jurisdiction passes to Board Clock starts on C-Delay 63 A Delay 838 Non-overlapping USPTO delays 2954 B Delay 1413 Applicant Delays 205 (not shown) C Delay 871 (win) Total PTA Adjustments = = 2749 days (7.5 years) Note: PTE, if any, is added to PTA. Because no RCE was filed, B-Delay accrued..

64 Procedure For Challenging PTA 37 CFR 1.705(b) A request for reconsideration must be filed no later than two months from date of iissuance.* usually (A) and (B) delay; could also be (C) delay USPTO determined-pta is now provided no later than date of issuance of the patent (See 154(b)((3)(B)(i)). Under 35 USC 154(b)(4) File district court action in E.D. Va. within 180 days after the date of the Director's decision on the applicant's request for reconsideration. 64 *applicable only to patents granted on or after January 14, 2013.

65 Tips For Trying To Maximize PTA Review USPTO s PTA calculation and, if disagree, must act quickly to preserve rights. After patent issues, request reconsideration in USPTO within 2 months. If still disagree, file district court case within 180 days of issuance of reconsideration decision. Respond within 3 months of an action don t take extensions. 37 C.F.R (b): >3 months is failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination and will mean deduction from PTA. Respond right at end of 3 months?? 65

66 Tips For Trying To Maximize PTA Verbally communicate election; a written restriction requirement will stop the 14-month clock. File electronically. Try to file complete replies. Ask examiner if a problem can be corrected in the next reply or by an examiner s amendment. Avoid Terminal Disclaimers and avoid disclaiming over a date certain. 66

67 Tips For Trying To Maximize PTA Avoid RCE s? Be aggressive and consider arguing against or appealing final rejections rather than use RCE. Appeals? Do your best to win on at least one claim on appeal. Once 3-year deadline has passed, consider paying the issue fee at the last possible moment to maximize B- delay, but make sure the issue payment is not missed or late. 67

68 Maximizing PTA: Avoiding Pitfalls Avoid filing papers after allowance. Ask examiner to make corrections by examiner s amendment. If a problem can be corrected by certificate of correction, wait and file after patent issues. But might be good idea to wait after notice of allowance to file an IDS before paying issue fee Consider filing a CIP rather than a continuation. First action for a CIP typically takes longer than for a continuation. 68 Timely file Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) File an IDS before the first office action or with a reply. Not considered untimely if IDS is filed within 30 days of a communication from the USPTO or a foreign patent office with a certification under 37 C.F.R (d). Earlier rule only included foreign office communications. Certification under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) does not prevent loss of PTA (within 3 months).

69 Maximizing PTA: Avoiding Pitfalls File Appeals if grounds exist and record supports. Establish necessary record early in prosecution to support appeal, and particularly to enhance chance of winning at least one claim on appeal. If examiner re-opens prosecution through an office action currently no C-Delay accrues. No favorable decision by the Board. A-Delay from the Appeal Brief filing until examiner issues an office action to re-open prosecution (any time over 4 months). But B-Delay, if available, inasmuch as no decision reached by Board. 69 Watch the clock - e.g., extension for filing an Appeal Brief = applicant delay.

70 Calculate Your Own PTA PTA as calculated by USPTO is issued no later than issue date. Check USPTO s calculation of PTA to ensure that it is correct. Usually based on data found in PAIR - but not always accurate. Final PTA will be indicated on the face of the issued patent. 70

71 What Should Corporate Counsel Be Doing? Identify pending applications that cover inventions that are expected to retain value at end of patent term. Carefully analyze US PTO s PTA calculation. Make sure correct under current law. Determine if law not being properly applied by US PTO. If disagree, must act quickly to preserve rights. After patent issues, request reconsideration in US PTO within 2 months and prepare to file district court case within 180 days of decision on request for reconsideration. 71

72 PATENT TERM EXTENSION 72 72

73 35 U.S.C U.S.C. 156 provides for patent term extensions for a patent that claims a product, a method of making a product, or a method of using a product that has been subject to premarket regulatory review before it is approved for commercial marketing in the United States. Extension = ½ (testing phase) + approval phase - any time applicant did not act with due diligence Not to exceed 5 years from patent expiration, exclusive of any regulatory review period occurring before the patent issues 156(g)(6) or not to exceed 14 years from NDA approval 156(c)(3), whichever comes first. 73

74 How Delay In Patent Issuance Costs PTE How to lose some 900 days of patent term extension because of delayed issuance Scenario 1: Day 0 - Regulatory review starts Day 1 Patent issues Day 1000 NDA filed Day 1500 FDA approval Patent gets about 999/2 of PTE for the regulatory review to NDA period and all 500 days for the regulatory period from NDA to FDA approval, = 1000 (subject to the 5/14 year caps) 74

75 How Delay In Patent Issuance Costs PTE (con t) How to lose some 900 days of patent term extension because of delayed issuance: moral - if PTE is going to be important want patent to issue as soon as possible, such as by Track I prosecution. Scenario 2: Same facts but patent issues on Day 998 Patent gets 2/2 of PTE for the regulatory review to NDA period and all 500 days for the regulatory period, from NDA to FDA approval, = 501 (subject to the 5/14 year caps). Scenario 3: Same facts but patent issues on Day 1400 Patent gets 0 of PTE for the regulatory review to NDA period, and only 100 days or so of PTE in the NDA approval time span, = 100 (subject to the 5/14 year caps). 75

76 Hypothetical Example: Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,001 (broad drug substance) Patent term (no PTA, no extension) : 20 years from PCT filing, almost 7 years from NDA approval date. Patent term with 5 year extension: 25 years from PCT filing, almost 12 years from NDA approval date. 14 year cap: 24 years from patent grant, 14 years from NDA approval date. 5 year cap is earlier, BUT eat into PTE if grant is after 16 Jul 2004 (AIA Prioritized Track I Exam: from 9/16/11 can accelerate issuance)

77 Hypothetical Example Showing LOSS in PTE from taking longer to get the patent Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,001 (broad drug substance) ½ of 2355 days ( = 1178) all of days (605) This slides shows the actual calculations for the regulatory approval period 77 77

78 Hypothetical Example: Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,002 (narrow drug substance covering approved product and bioequivalents) Patent term (no PTA, no extension) : almost 17 years from grant, some 8 + years from NDA approval date. Patent term with 5 year extension: almost 22 years from grant, some 13 + years from NDA approval date. 14 year cap: 22 years 5 mos. from patent grant, 14 years from NDA approval date. 5 year cap is earlier. 78 Longer expiration than 001 A key: patent issued before 16 July Issuing thereafter eats into PTE. 7878

79 Hypothetical Example Showing LOSS in PTE from taking longer to get the patent Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,002 (narrow drug substance covering approved product and bioequivalents) ½ of 2355 days (1177.5) all of days (605) This slides shows the actual calculations for the regulatory approval period

80 Hypothetical Example: Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,003 (polymorphic form of the drug substance) 003: a continuation in the 002 family, issued years later w/narrower but listable claims. -> less extension Note that the continuation strategy cost some 2 years of PTE on perhaps the most enforceable, i.e. polymorphic form,of the patents 001, 002, and 003. An earlier application in the family could have helped PTE. Track I Prioritized Exam available beginning on 9/16/11 can help get patent earlier and maximize PTE

81 Hypothetical Example Showing LOSS in PTE from taking longer to get the 003 patent Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,003 ½ of 835 days (417.5) (polymorphic form of the drug substance) all of days (605) This slides shows the actual calculations for the regulatory approval period

82 Hypothetical Example: Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,004 (method of use approved by FDA) Note that continuation strategy ate into PTE. But 004 may not have been the primo patent of the series because generic manufacturer might have been able to seek another indication and might have been able to skinny label

83 Hypothetical Example Showing LOSS in PTE from taking longer to get the patent Patent Term Extension Timeline for U.S. 0,000,004 ½ of 1900 days (950) (method of use approved by FDA) all of days (605) This slides shows the actual calculations for the regulatory approval period

84 Sample PTE Timeline For The Future Earliest effective non-prov. filing date patent grant Approx. NDA Filing date Approx. NCE expiration date approx. NDA approval + 14 years original expiration of 001 patent + 5 years Approx. IND filing date Approx. regulat. review start date Approx. NDA Approval Date Approx. Initial ANDA challenge date original expiration of 001 patent approx. expiration of extended 001 patent Assume Prioritized Exam was used for the 001; issued in a little over 9 months 001 extension approximately 1460 days; expires , as shown. BUT subject to 14-year cap, , as shown which comes before 5-year cap! Why? Filing after regulatory period began, patent issued quickly. That later filing may have raised prior art risks

85 Sample PTE Timeline For The Future (NOT TO SCALE) Earliest effective non-prov. filing date patent grant Approx. NDA Filing date Approx. NCE expiration date original expiration of 001 patent + 5 years approx. NDA approval + 14 years Approx. IND filing date Approx. regulat. review start date Approx. NDA Approval Date Approx. Initial ANDA challenge date original expiration of 001 patent 001 extension approximately 1460 days to ~1-1-34, not shown. BUT does not even hit 5-year cap, , which comes before 14-year cap! Why? Filed patent application before regulatory period began; patent did not issue quickly. Depends on facts and circumstances 85 85

86 Limited Time To Make Requests Deadline for filing application for PTE: non-extendible 60-day period from the date the product is approved for commercial marketing. If the original term of the patent will expire before the product is approved for commercial marketing or use, application for interim PTE must be filed during the period beginning 6 months, and ending 15 days before the term is due to expire. Each subsequent application for interim extension must be filed during the period beginning sixty days before and ending thirty days before the expiration of the preceding interim extension. PTE available even where regulatory approval occurs after the expiration date of the original patent term. 86

87 PTE Applies To Entire Patent? Federal Circuit arguably has been inconsistent, interpreting product to mean active ingredient for eligibility purposes, and active moiety for purposes of protection in the extended term (see the Pfizer case). 87

88 ODP and PTE Issue: dealing with an ODP issue after the patent issues, and either before or after the PTE certificate issues, particularly where the 14 year cap may be involved. It may be better to file a TD before the PTE calculation is made in order to maximize PTE. If PTE certificate issued before TD is filed, PTO has no authority to recalculate PTE based on an earlier patent expiration date (which may lead to loss of patent term if the extension was capped by 14 years). To partially address the above issue, the PTO has redrafted its certificate language so that it no longer makes reference to the original expiration date of the patent (recognizing that it may change as a result of a TD filed after the patent is granted.) 88

89 ODP AND PTE Kowa Co., Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 1:14-cv H-W litigation related to U.S. Pat. No. 5,856,336 (Livalo ). Amneal argued 336 patent invalid for ODP over U.S. Pat. No. 5,872,130. DC: 336 patent not invalid for ODP. 336 issued and originally expired earlier than extended by PTE; nothing to do with ODP. Amneal did not show 336 claims obvious in light of the 130 claims. A [POSITA] at the time would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the pitavavstatin sodium in the 130 patent by substituting calcium for sodium and preparing the pitavastatin calcium salt claimed by the 336 patent, nor would it have been obvious to do so. Objective evidence of nonobvious would rebut any p.f. case. 89

90 Same Inventors, Same Assignee 336 patent Claim 1: chemical compound of the calcium salt of pitavastatin. Claim 2: method of reducing certain lipid disorders through administration of an effective amount of the compound of formula A as defined in claim patent Claim 1: several chemical compounds including the sodium salt of pitavastatin. Claim 5: method of reducing certain lipid disorders through administration of an effective amount of the compound of formula A defined in claim 1. 90

91 Japanese app. filed Aug. 20, 1987 U.S. app. filed Aug. 19, allowed Sept. 30, allowed Sept. 30, issued Jan. 5, issued Feb. 16, original expiration date Jan. 5, TD shortened to Dec. 29, expired Feb. 16, PTE extended expiration to Dec. 25,

92 92 Claims

93 Amneal s Application Of Gilead Fails DC: While Gilead clarified that the obviousness-type double patenting analysis requires a comparison of patent expiration dates, rather than patent issue dates, it did not address Hatch-Waxman PTEs.Nor did any other decision relied on by Amneal[.] Merck & Co., Inc. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1996) controls: Amneal cannot rely on the later-expiring 130 patent to invalidate the PTE granted to the 336 patent

94 Did Not Show Obvious DC: Amneal did not show that the claims of the 336 patent are not patentably distinct from or that they are obvious in light of the claims of the 130 patent. Amneal expert not educated in chemistry. Reliance on reference questionable. Amneal expert testified that pitavastatin sodium is distinct from pitavastatin calcium. Objective evidence rebutted any p.f. case of obviousness. 94

95 No Appeal Of ODP Holding Kowa Co., Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, Case No is appeal of district court decision of no invalidity for inherent anticipation. Currently scheduling oral argument. 95

96 PTE and ODP Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures, 2016 WL (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2016), oral argument heard in appeal, June 5, 2018 Ezra filed ANDA related to Gilenya. Ezra moved for judgment on the pleadings that the 229 patent is invalid or otherwise terminally disclaimed for time past expiration date of 565 patent. DC: Denied motion. Feb original expiration date Sept expiration date Feb PTE expiration date 96 compound fingolimod patent method of using fingolimod

97 Ezra Arguments [E]xtension of the 229 compound patent beyond the life of the 565 patent is impermissible because it: de facto extends the life of the method patent, and thereby violates the provision of 35 U.S.C. 156 requiring that in no event [may] more than one patent be extended... for the same regulatory review period for any product; violates the bedrock principle that the public may practice an expired patent; and renders the 229 patent invalid for statutory and obviousnesstype double patenting. 97

98 District Court Response Congress chose not to limit the availability of a patent term extension to a specific parent or continuation patent but instead chose a flexible approach which gave the patentee the choice. [There s] no reason why a patentee should not have the same choice as between an earlier patent and a later patent related by a terminal disclaimer. 156(c)(4) permits the de facto patent term extension to which Defendant objects in this case. Accordingly, the Court concludes Defendant s argument does not provide a meritorious basis to grant it judgment on the pleadings. 98

99 District Court Response The expiration of a patent does not grant the public an affirmative right to practice a patent; it merely ends the term of the patentee s right to exclude others from practicing the patent. Defendant has not identified authority supporting the view that even a fundamental policy precept should override the express statutory language adopted by Congress. Accordingly, again, Defendant s argument does not provide a basis to grant judgment on the pleadings. 99

100 District Court Response Even assuming that a double patenting analysis is applicable in the context of a PTE, the Court is not in a position to make this determination at the judgment on the pleadings stage of this case. At the appropriate time, Defendant may seek leave to file a motion for summary judgment based on double patenting should it have a good faith basis to do so. 100

101 ODP and URAA Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., 248 F.Supp.3d 578 (D. Del. April 3, 2017) U.S. Pat. 6,440,990 (divisional of 772) Claims directed to derivative of rapamycin, everolimus, and include all limitations of various claims of the 772 patent. U.S. Pat. 5,665,772 Claims directed to rapamycin. DC: 990 is a proper double-patenting reference for the 772 patent and the 772 claims are invalid for ODP. 101

102 GILEAD and ABBVIE Apply DC: According to the Federal Circuit, what matters in a double patenting analysis, at least for post-uraa patents, is the expiration dates of the patents. Id. at The Federal Circuit has since revisited this question and made explicit that the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting continues to apply where two patents that claim the same invention have different expiration dates. AbbVie, Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 102

103 Quotable Quotes DC: I see no reason why such a patent term extension would protect a patent from a double patenting challenge. 103 Neither Gilead nor AbbVie held that gamesmanship is required. A patentee can obtain an unjustified extension of patent rights without engaging in gamesmanship simply by seeking two patents on the same invention, as the patentee did here. The only relevant issue is the earlier expiration date of the 990 patent, as it is the extension of the period of exclusivity by virtue of the 772 patent s later expiration date that violates the principles underlying the double patenting prohibition. The patentee s motives are not relevant. Oral argument held June 4, 2018

104 Appellate Briefs Novartis Note re PTE: Appellees did not argue to the District Court that the 156 extension gives rise to double patenting, and the District Court did not rely on the 156 extension to hold the 772 Patent invalid. See Appx15. Thus, the 156 extension is irrelevant to the arguments herein, but explains why Novartis s rights under the 772 Patent have not expired. DC erred in finding that the 990 Patent could serve as an ODP reference against the 772 Patent, and then that the 772 Patent Asserted Claims were invalid for ODP. 104

105 Appellate Briefs Novartis (con t) The URAA patent should not retroactively shorten the pre-uraa patent term. the term of the first-filed and first-issued 772 Patent was not extended by the second-filed and second-issued 990 Patent. the earlier expiration date of the later-filed and later-issued Post-URAA 990 Patent is due solely to the change in law not because of any untoward act by Novartis. Gilead and AbbVie very different facts and should not apply. 105 Should have followed Delaware district court precedent of Brigham and Abbott and Merck. District court decision inconsistent with policy and inequitable.

106 Appellate Briefs Novartis Reply Brief (con t) 106 Novartis could not have known Gilead would change law. When Novartis filed its divisional, district courts had held that a laterfiled earlier-expiring post-uraa patent could not serve as a reference patent against an earlier-filed later-expiring pre-uraa patent. By the time Gilead was released in 2014, neither Novartis nor any other similarly-situated patentee could turn back the clock and abandon the divisional (or continuation) application that could be used as a reference patent. Nor could Novartis revisit its patent term extension decision and choose to seek patent term extension on the 990 patent, rather than the 772 patent. Novartis in 2014 could not have filed a terminal disclaimer for the 772 patent to shield that patent against an expansion of Gilead, because the later-filed 990 patent expired in 2013.

107 Appellate Briefs Breckenridge Answering Brief Public has right to use a patented invention when the first patent expires; the expiration date is the time when the public acquires the right to practice the invention and its obvious variations. Gilead applies. Patentee s motives are irrelevant because inquiry is objective. Gilead Federal Circuit majority reversed a district court decision relaying heavily on Brigham and Abbott. Claims are not patentably distinct. There is no equitable exception to the prohibition, and if there were, Novartis would not qualify for it. 107

108 PTE Available For Class III Medical Devices Also Medical devices must be approved under 515 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to be eligible for term extension. Medical devices approved under 510(k) are not eligible. In re Nitinol Medical Technologies, Inc., 17 USPQ 2d 1492 (Comm r. Pat. & Tm. 1990); Baxter Diagnostics v. AVL Scientific Corp., 798 F.Supp 612, (C.D. CA 1992) 108

109 Application For PTE Start planning early in the product approval cycle. Avoid last-minute rush. File early to permit US PTO to review the application and identify any potentially fatal errors before the 60-day deadline expires. And whether or not such early review occurs, file well before the non-extendible 60-day period. Draft your PTE application as soon as FDA approval is obtained so you can see if you have any holes to fill. 109

110 Application For PTE Start planning early in the product approval cycle. Avoid last-minute rush. File PTE for all Orange Book-listable patents and later elect which patent will get the PTE. Hedge your bets against foreign litigation and AIA procedures of PGR and IPR. Hedge your bets against possible use of Supplemental Examination. Consider potential further development of approved product. 110

111 Application For PTE Start planning early in the product approval cycle. Avoid last-minute rush. Close communication with Regulatory group. Make sure appropriate person leading PTE application is identified of approval as soon as possible. Alert to need for documents and FDA communication logs. 111

112 Processing A PTE Request Patentee may file multiple applications for PTE based on different patents but the same regulatory approval of a product. Preserve an opportunity to select an appropriate patent until the time that the Commissioner must grant a certificate of patent term extension. Only one patent may be extended per regulatory review of a particular product. All papers are available in theory to the public on PAIR once the application for patent term extension is filed. 112

113 113 Sample Patent Term Extension Notice

114 Sample Patent Term Extension Notice USPTO Explanation of the calculation: Patent granted Sept. 3, 2002 NDA filed Jan. 31, 2003 NDA approved Dec. 15, 2004 PTE application Feb. 11, 2005 Original expiration Jan. 16, 2012 Term extension 760 days Extended term expiration Feb. 14,

115 115 Sample Patent Term Extension Notice

116 116 Sample Request For Reconsideration Of Patent Term Extension

117 Changing Information In The Orange Book 117

118 Third Party Has 180 Days After Publication Of Regulatory Review Period To Question Due Diligence Of PTE Applicant Also note 21 CFR sets a 60 day period from the initial publication in the Federal Register for any person to request reconsideration of the regulatory review period determination (typically for issues other than due diligence)