Close Menu
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
What's On

Experts weigh in on Karen Read’s lawsuit after criminal trial

July 4, 2025

AT&T settles lawsuits over data breaches: How to get a payment

June 25, 2025

Seven charged in $100M California jewelry heist, largest in US history

June 19, 2025

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 2025

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Legal MagLegal Mag
Newsletter
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
Legal MagLegal Mag
Home » ‘In re Cellect’: How Patent Owners Can Protect Themselves from Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidity Determinations
Intellectual Property

‘In re Cellect’: How Patent Owners Can Protect Themselves from Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidity Determinations

News RoomBy News RoomMarch 22, 20241 Min Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest WhatsApp Email

The recent case of In re Cellect, No. 22-1293 (Fed. Cir. 2023) serves as a warning to patent owners who rely too heavily on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to completely and accurately examine their patent applications. In Cellect, the USPTO’s failure to issue an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection during prosecution, combined with a grant of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 154(b), led to the invalidation of Cellect LLC’s patents. This article presents patent owners with several options to consider to avoid a fate similar to Cellect.

Background

Cellect owned a patent portfolio including a number of related child patents, all claiming priority from a single parent patent. During prosecution of the family, two notable events occurred.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous ArticleFormer Milbank Partner is Latest Paul Weiss UK Addition
Next Article Customer Agreements at the Intersection of Data and AI: Managing Risk and Preserving Value

Related Posts

Who Got the Work: Saul Ewing Team Appears for Samsung Bioepis in Amgen Patent Case

August 22, 2024

E-Commerce Company Alleges Albertsons Stole Trade Secrets to Develop Own Platform

August 20, 2024

How ‘In re Cellect’ and a Proposed Rule Could Affect Double Patenting

August 20, 2024
Latest Articles

AT&T settles lawsuits over data breaches: How to get a payment

June 25, 20250 Views

Seven charged in $100M California jewelry heist, largest in US history

June 19, 20250 Views

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 20250 Views

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 20253 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue

By News RoomApril 16, 2024

For the full 2024 Am Law 100 report, click here. For more ways to analyze the…

The 2024 A-List: Top 20 Firms

August 6, 2024

Defending Claims Where Extreme Weather Is to Blame: Our Changing Climate’s Impact on Civil Litigation

July 18, 2024
© 2025 Legal Mag. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.