Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Teva v. AstraZeneca and secret prior art under 102(g)(2)

A recent Federal Circuit decision and the reasoning behind it could have a significant impact on the patentability of other life science inventions, even after changes in the patent law.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Teva v. AstraZeneca. No. 2011–1091 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 1, 2011).

  2. 2

    H.R. 1249, 112th Cong. § 3 (2011).

  3. 3

    Chisum, D.S. Priority among competing patent applicants under the American Invents Act, § II.A (2011). <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1969592>

  4. 4

    Rich, G.S. Speech to the New York Patent Law Association (Nov. 6, 1951).

  5. 5

    See Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corp., 166 F.3d 1172, n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

  6. 6

    S. 1948 § 4806 (1999).

  7. 7

    See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

  8. 8

    Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

  9. 9

    Mycogen Plant Sciences v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

  10. 10

    Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

  11. 11

    Parker v. Frilette, 462 F.2d 544, 547 (CCPA 1972).

  12. 12

    US Patent No. RE39,502, Claim 1 (emphasis added)

  13. 13

    H.R. 1249 at § 5 (amending 35 USC § 273(g) to recite “[a] patent shall not be deemed to be invalid under section 102 or 103 solely because a defense is raised or established under this section.”).

  14. 14

    H.R. 1249 at § 5 (amending 35 USC § 273(f) to recite “[i]f the defense under this section is pleaded by a person who is found to infringe the patent and who subsequently fails to demonstrate a reasonable basis for asserting the defense, the court shall find the case exceptional for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under section 285.”).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Lee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S., Knierim, M. Teva v. AstraZeneca and secret prior art under 102(g)(2). Nat Biotechnol 30, 831–833 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2353

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing