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

AuthorRussell S. Timm - JD Wooten
PositionRussell 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 JD Wooten is a...
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
Double Patenting
A Practitioner’s
By Russell S. Timm and JD Wooten

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT