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 via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Teva v. AstraZeneca. No. 2011–1091 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 1, 2011).
H.R. 1249, 112th Cong. § 3 (2011).
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>
Rich, G.S. Speech to the New York Patent Law Association (Nov. 6, 1951).
See Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corp., 166 F.3d 1172, n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
S. 1948 § 4806 (1999).
See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Dow Chemical Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Mycogen Plant Sciences v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Parker v. Frilette, 462 F.2d 544, 547 (CCPA 1972).
US Patent No. RE39,502, Claim 1 (emphasis added)
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.”).
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.”).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2353
