Responding to Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections: A Practitioner's Perspective

• Author: Russell S. Timm - JD Wooten
• Position: Russell S. Timm, PhD, is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson's life sciences and pharmaceuticals team. He has extensive experience in obtaining patents covering therapeutic antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates for clients, but also works on a wide variety of other technologies. He can be reached at russell.timm@wbd-us.com. JD Wooten is a...
• Pages: 56-60

Published in Landslide® magazine, Volume 11, Number 4, a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL), ©2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

Given the increasing scrutiny of courts and patent examin-

ers, nonstatutory double patenting rejections can be fraught

with both challenges and risks. Although almost all obvi-

ousness-type, nonstatutory double patenting rejections can

be based on both anticipation and obviousness rationales.1 Overcom-

ing the challenges and minimizing the risks in order to achieve the

best outcome for your client can be made easier by approaching a

response to such a rejection in ve sequential steps.

Responding to

Nonstatutory

Double Patenting

Rejections

A Practitioner’s

Perspective

By Russell S. Timm and JD Wooten