Cellect LLC has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review an alleged “nonsensical” invalidation of its patents due to a controversial principle known as obviousness-type double patenting. The biotech company contends that it was penalized by the Federal Circuit for holdups in the patent prosecution process, factors which, according to them, were beyond their influence or control.
This litigation is part of the ongoing debate around the nature of obviousness-type double patenting, a complex area of patent law that generally prevents the issuing of two patents for one invention. Cellect’s contention is that the Federal Circuit, in using this principle to strike their patents, has essentially punished them for delays that were not within their power to prevent. This argument directly challenges the interpretation and implementation of the doctrine by the Federal Circuit.
This case represents another instance where companies can find themselves confronting potentially incongruous elements within the patent law system. The scope of this appeal could potentially set further guidance in the sphere of obviousness-type double patenting, defining the extent to which unavoidable delays in the patent prosecution process can lead to punitive actions against patent holders.
For the details about the specifics of the case, legal debates, and concerns raised by Cellect, the original article from Law360 can be accessed here.