Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 DECEMBER 2014

Rule Review - Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (effective June 8, 1995), installed a twenty-year U.S. patent term from the earliest-claimed priority date, modifying the previous seventeen-year term calculated from the date of patent issuance.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (effective June 8, 1995), installed a twenty-year U.S. patent term from the earliest-claimed priority date, modifying the previous seventeen-year term calculated from the date of patent issuance.1  That change eliminated a perceived abuse—sometimes called "submarine patenting" or "evergreening"—wherein the use of continuing applications allowed claiming of previously disclosed features many, many years later, since patent expiration was calculated from the date of issuance.  In that former context, the prohibition against obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) was a check ensuring that patentees could not obtain more than one patent based on merely unpatentable variations, effectively extending the monopoly on the same basic invention.   

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from