All Insights

Client Alerts

Patent Owner Protected by Safe Harbor Provision

January 27, 2010

By Bruce M. Wexler and Eric W. Dittmann

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., reversing the district courts judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 4,886,812 (the 812 patent) for obviousness-type double patenting. Appeal No. 2009-1032 (Fed Cir. Jan. 25, 2010).


The patent in suit (the 812 patent) covered the active ingredient in drug products sold by Boehringer Ingelheim under the trademark MIRAPEX® (pramipexole dihydrochloride). The appeal was from a decision by the District of Delaware finding Boehringer Ingelheim's patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of invalidity. Although the Court found that a terminal disclaimer filed after expiration of the underlying reference patent was ineffective, the Court confirmed more generally that "a patentee may file a [terminal] disclaimer after issuance of the challenged patent or during litigation, even after a finding that the challenged patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting." (Slip Op. at 11.) The patent in suit was subject to a § 156 patent term extension, which resulted in the existence of patent term after the expiration of the underlying reference patent even with the filing of a terminal disclaimer.

The Federal Circuit further determined that the patent in suit was protected from obviousness-type double patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 121. The court held that "divisionals of divisionals" may be protected by § 121. (Id. at 20.) The Court further found that the divisional was filed "as a result of" a restriction requirement, and that the divisional was consonant with that requirement, discussing the PTO's definition of the independent and distinct invention groups in the restriction requirement.

Get In Touch With Us

Contact Us