When do biologic drug patents expire and when will biosimilars launch?

Understanding the Complexities of the U.S. Patent Landscape: A Critical Analysis of United States Patent 10,149,893

Introduction

The U.S. patent system is a complex and dynamic environment, influenced by various legal, procedural, and strategic factors. This article delves into the intricacies of the patent landscape, using United States Patent 10,149,893 as a case study to explore key aspects such as patent quality, post-grant challenges, and the role of patent assertion entities (PAEs).

Patent Quality and Survival Rates

Determinants of Patent Quality

The quality of a patent is crucial in determining its survival rate in post-grant challenges. Research has shown that several factors influence a patent's likelihood of surviving these challenges. For instance, patents prosecuted by large law firms, particularly those in the pharmaceutical sector, tend to have higher survival rates due to their meticulous prosecution and examination processes[2].

Impact of Prosecution History

The prosecution history of a patent, including the number of words per claim and the number of US patent classes, also plays a significant role. Patents with more words per claim and those assigned to examiners with lower allowance rates are more likely to survive inter partes review (IPR)[2].

Post-Grant Challenges: Inter Partes Review and Ex Parte Reexamination

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

IPR is a critical mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has seen a significant increase in IPR petitions, with a 34% rise in Q3 2024 compared to the same quarter in 2023. The institution rate for these petitions has also increased, indicating a higher likelihood of challenges being instituted[5].

Ex Parte Reexamination

Ex parte reexamination is another avenue for challenging patent validity. Recent data shows that reexamination requests are on the rise, with Q3 2024 seeing a 62% increase over the same period in the previous year. However, the overlap between reexamination requests and PTAB challenges is decreasing, suggesting a shift in strategies for patent challengers[5].

The Role of Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs)

Business Models of PAEs

PAEs, often referred to as "patent trolls," operate under distinct business models. Portfolio PAEs negotiate licenses for large portfolios of patents without necessarily suing the alleged infringer, while Litigation PAEs rely heavily on patent infringement suits to secure licenses. Despite accounting for only 9% of reported licenses, Portfolio PAEs generate 80% of the revenue from these licenses[3].

Impact on Various Industries

PAEs assert patents across a broad range of industries, including retail trade. This widespread assertion can have significant economic and legal implications for businesses, highlighting the need for robust patent strategies and defenses[3].

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP)

Legal Framework

ODP is a critical issue in patent law, aimed at preventing an inventor from securing multiple patents for the same invention. The Federal Circuit has clarified that ODP analysis must consider the adjusted expiration date of a patent, including any patent term adjustments (PTA) or extensions[1].

Practical Implications

In the case of Cellect, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's determination that ODP analysis should be based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent. This ruling has significant implications for patent owners, as it affects the term and validity of their patents[1].

Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions

Patent Term Guarantees

The U.S. patent system provides guarantees for prompt responses from the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which can result in patent term adjustments if there are delays. These adjustments ensure that the effective term of the patent is not reduced due to administrative delays[1].

Terminal Disclaimers

Terminal disclaimers are used to overcome ODP rejections and can affect the patent term. The Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent term extension under § 156 is not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer, but the extension is calculated from the date resulting from the terminal disclaimer, not the original expiration date[1].

Case Study: United States Patent 10,149,893

Background

While specific details about United States Patent 10,149,893 are not provided here, a comprehensive analysis would involve examining its prosecution history, claim structure, and any post-grant challenges it may have faced.

Prosecution History

Analyzing the prosecution history would reveal whether the patent was prosecuted by a large law firm, the number of words per claim, and the examiner's allowance rate. These factors can provide insights into the patent's quality and its likelihood of surviving challenges.

Post-Grant Challenges

Checking if the patent has been subject to IPR or ex parte reexamination would provide valuable information on its validity. The outcome of these challenges can significantly impact the patent's enforceability and value.

Strategic Considerations for Patent Owners

Patent Prosecution Strategies

Patent owners should employ robust prosecution strategies, including working with experienced law firms and ensuring that claims are meticulously drafted to withstand post-grant challenges.

Defending Against PAEs

Understanding the business models of PAEs and being prepared to defend against their assertions is crucial. This may involve developing a comprehensive defense strategy that includes challenging the validity of asserted patents through IPR or ex parte reexamination.

Recent Trends and Developments

NHK-Fintiv Rule

The ongoing legal battle over the NHK-Fintiv rule, which allows the PTAB to discretionarily deny institution of IPR based on parallel litigation, highlights the evolving landscape of post-grant challenges. This rule and its challenges have significant implications for patent owners and challengers alike[5].

Estoppel Regulations

The Federal Circuit's decision in SoftView v. Apple has clarified the USPTO's authority to regulate IPR proceedings, including the prevention of patent owners from obtaining claims that are not patentably distinct from claims invalidated by the PTAB. This ruling underscores the USPTO's regulatory power within the bounds of the AIA[5].

Key Takeaways

Patent Quality: The quality of a patent, influenced by factors such as prosecution history and claim structure, is crucial for its survival in post-grant challenges.
Post-Grant Challenges: IPR and ex parte reexamination are critical mechanisms for challenging patent validity, with recent trends showing an increase in these challenges.
PAEs: Understanding the business models of PAEs and their impact on various industries is essential for developing effective patent strategies.
ODP and Patent Term Adjustments: ODP analysis and patent term adjustments are vital in determining the validity and term of a patent.
Strategic Considerations: Robust prosecution strategies and being prepared to defend against PAEs are key for patent owners.

FAQs

What are the key factors that determine the quality of a patent?

The quality of a patent is determined by several factors, including the size of the law firm prosecuting the patent, the number of words per claim, and the examiner's allowance rate.

How do PAEs operate, and what are their impacts on businesses?

PAEs operate under two main business models: Portfolio PAEs and Litigation PAEs. They assert patents across various industries, generating significant revenue, and their activities can have economic and legal implications for businesses.

What is the significance of ODP in patent law?

ODP prevents an inventor from securing multiple patents for the same invention. It must be analyzed based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent, including any PTA or extensions.

What are the recent trends in post-grant challenges?

There has been an increase in IPR and ex parte reexamination petitions, with a higher institution rate for IPR petitions. The NHK-Fintiv rule and estoppel regulations are also shaping the landscape of post-grant challenges.

How can patent owners defend against PAE assertions?

Patent owners can defend against PAE assertions by developing comprehensive defense strategies, including challenging the validity of asserted patents through IPR or ex parte reexamination, and understanding the business models of PAEs.

Sources

In re Cellect - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, August 28, 2023.
Determinants of Patent Quality: Evidence from Inter Partes Review Proceedings - Brian J. Love, Shawn P. Miller & Shawn Ambwani, 90 U. Colo. L. Rev. 67 (2019).
Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study - Federal Trade Commission.
Methods for modifying progression of osteoarthritis - Patent WO-2015047243-A1.
Q3 in Review: US NPE Upswing Continues as UPC Comes Further into Focus - RPX Corporation.

Title:	Methods for modifying progression of osteoarthritis
Abstract:	Methods for modifying progression of osteoarthritis by local administration of a clostridial derivative, such as a botulinum toxin, to an arthritis-affected site are disclosed herein.
Inventor(s):	Jiang; Guang L. (Irvine, CA), Turkel; Catherine (Newport Coast, CA)
Assignee:	Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, CA)
Application Number:	14/035,622
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 10,149,893
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	Understanding the Complexities of the U.S. Patent Landscape: A Critical Analysis of United States Patent 10,149,893 Introduction The U.S. patent system is a complex and dynamic environment, influenced by various legal, procedural, and strategic factors. This article delves into the intricacies of the patent landscape, using United States Patent 10,149,893 as a case study to explore key aspects such as patent quality, post-grant challenges, and the role of patent assertion entities (PAEs). Patent Quality and Survival Rates Determinants of Patent Quality The quality of a patent is crucial in determining its survival rate in post-grant challenges. Research has shown that several factors influence a patent's likelihood of surviving these challenges. For instance, patents prosecuted by large law firms, particularly those in the pharmaceutical sector, tend to have higher survival rates due to their meticulous prosecution and examination processes[2]. Impact of Prosecution History The prosecution history of a patent, including the number of words per claim and the number of US patent classes, also plays a significant role. Patents with more words per claim and those assigned to examiners with lower allowance rates are more likely to survive inter partes review (IPR)[2]. Post-Grant Challenges: Inter Partes Review and Ex Parte Reexamination Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR is a critical mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has seen a significant increase in IPR petitions, with a 34% rise in Q3 2024 compared to the same quarter in 2023. The institution rate for these petitions has also increased, indicating a higher likelihood of challenges being instituted[5]. Ex Parte Reexamination Ex parte reexamination is another avenue for challenging patent validity. Recent data shows that reexamination requests are on the rise, with Q3 2024 seeing a 62% increase over the same period in the previous year. However, the overlap between reexamination requests and PTAB challenges is decreasing, suggesting a shift in strategies for patent challengers[5]. The Role of Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) Business Models of PAEs PAEs, often referred to as "patent trolls," operate under distinct business models. Portfolio PAEs negotiate licenses for large portfolios of patents without necessarily suing the alleged infringer, while Litigation PAEs rely heavily on patent infringement suits to secure licenses. Despite accounting for only 9% of reported licenses, Portfolio PAEs generate 80% of the revenue from these licenses[3]. Impact on Various Industries PAEs assert patents across a broad range of industries, including retail trade. This widespread assertion can have significant economic and legal implications for businesses, highlighting the need for robust patent strategies and defenses[3]. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) Legal Framework ODP is a critical issue in patent law, aimed at preventing an inventor from securing multiple patents for the same invention. The Federal Circuit has clarified that ODP analysis must consider the adjusted expiration date of a patent, including any patent term adjustments (PTA) or extensions[1]. Practical Implications In the case of Cellect, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's determination that ODP analysis should be based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent. This ruling has significant implications for patent owners, as it affects the term and validity of their patents[1]. Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions Patent Term Guarantees The U.S. patent system provides guarantees for prompt responses from the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which can result in patent term adjustments if there are delays. These adjustments ensure that the effective term of the patent is not reduced due to administrative delays[1]. Terminal Disclaimers Terminal disclaimers are used to overcome ODP rejections and can affect the patent term. The Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent term extension under § 156 is not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer, but the extension is calculated from the date resulting from the terminal disclaimer, not the original expiration date[1]. Case Study: United States Patent 10,149,893 Background While specific details about United States Patent 10,149,893 are not provided here, a comprehensive analysis would involve examining its prosecution history, claim structure, and any post-grant challenges it may have faced. Prosecution History Analyzing the prosecution history would reveal whether the patent was prosecuted by a large law firm, the number of words per claim, and the examiner's allowance rate. These factors can provide insights into the patent's quality and its likelihood of surviving challenges. Post-Grant Challenges Checking if the patent has been subject to IPR or ex parte reexamination would provide valuable information on its validity. The outcome of these challenges can significantly impact the patent's enforceability and value. Strategic Considerations for Patent Owners Patent Prosecution Strategies Patent owners should employ robust prosecution strategies, including working with experienced law firms and ensuring that claims are meticulously drafted to withstand post-grant challenges. Defending Against PAEs Understanding the business models of PAEs and being prepared to defend against their assertions is crucial. This may involve developing a comprehensive defense strategy that includes challenging the validity of asserted patents through IPR or ex parte reexamination. Recent Trends and Developments NHK-Fintiv Rule The ongoing legal battle over the NHK-Fintiv rule, which allows the PTAB to discretionarily deny institution of IPR based on parallel litigation, highlights the evolving landscape of post-grant challenges. This rule and its challenges have significant implications for patent owners and challengers alike[5]. Estoppel Regulations The Federal Circuit's decision in SoftView v. Apple has clarified the USPTO's authority to regulate IPR proceedings, including the prevention of patent owners from obtaining claims that are not patentably distinct from claims invalidated by the PTAB. This ruling underscores the USPTO's regulatory power within the bounds of the AIA[5]. Key Takeaways Patent Quality: The quality of a patent, influenced by factors such as prosecution history and claim structure, is crucial for its survival in post-grant challenges. Post-Grant Challenges: IPR and ex parte reexamination are critical mechanisms for challenging patent validity, with recent trends showing an increase in these challenges. PAEs: Understanding the business models of PAEs and their impact on various industries is essential for developing effective patent strategies. ODP and Patent Term Adjustments: ODP analysis and patent term adjustments are vital in determining the validity and term of a patent. Strategic Considerations: Robust prosecution strategies and being prepared to defend against PAEs are key for patent owners. FAQs What are the key factors that determine the quality of a patent? The quality of a patent is determined by several factors, including the size of the law firm prosecuting the patent, the number of words per claim, and the examiner's allowance rate. How do PAEs operate, and what are their impacts on businesses? PAEs operate under two main business models: Portfolio PAEs and Litigation PAEs. They assert patents across various industries, generating significant revenue, and their activities can have economic and legal implications for businesses. What is the significance of ODP in patent law? ODP prevents an inventor from securing multiple patents for the same invention. It must be analyzed based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent, including any PTA or extensions. What are the recent trends in post-grant challenges? There has been an increase in IPR and ex parte reexamination petitions, with a higher institution rate for IPR petitions. The NHK-Fintiv rule and estoppel regulations are also shaping the landscape of post-grant challenges. How can patent owners defend against PAE assertions? Patent owners can defend against PAE assertions by developing comprehensive defense strategies, including challenging the validity of asserted patents through IPR or ex parte reexamination, and understanding the business models of PAEs. Sources In re Cellect - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, August 28, 2023. Determinants of Patent Quality: Evidence from Inter Partes Review Proceedings - Brian J. Love, Shawn P. Miller & Shawn Ambwani, 90 U. Colo. L. Rev. 67 (2019). Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study - Federal Trade Commission. Methods for modifying progression of osteoarthritis - Patent WO-2015047243-A1. Q3 in Review: US NPE Upswing Continues as UPC Comes Further into Focus - RPX Corporation. More… ↓ ⤷ Try for Free

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate

Abbvie Inc.	BOTOX COSMETIC	onabotulinumtoxina	For Injection	103000	December 09, 1991	10,149,893	2039-02-26
Abbvie Inc.	BOTOX	onabotulinumtoxina	For Injection	103000	December 09, 1991	10,149,893	2039-02-26
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 10,149,893

Summary for Patent: 10,149,893