Abstract
Disclosure is an important part of both the USPTO patent application process and the FDA regulatory review process. The specific disclosures that are required by the USPTO and the FDA can sometimes be potentially problematic for those who are involved in both the patent application process and the regulatory review processes. Generally speaking, disclosures that are made to the USPTO need to also be made to the FDA, and vice versa. Failing to make a disclosure when disclosure is required can lead to a finding of inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent, which can result in the patent being invalidated, and/or can prompt the FDA to initiate an investigation as to whether significant questions regarding data integrity and reliability with respect to a regulated product have been raised for a medical device product that is under review. Being aware of disclosure requirements, and the consequences for failing to comply with those requirements, can help avoid serious pitfalls during the patent prosecution and regulatory processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).
United States Water Servs. v. Novozymes A/S, 843 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc. v. Acorn Mobility Servs., 394 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co., 439 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
FDA Application Integrity Policy, Section 1-1-3(1), available online at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ApplicationIntegrityPolicy/ucm072631.pdf (accessed Aug. 21, 2018).
FDA Compliance Policy Guidance Manual, Section 120.100, available online at https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm073837.htm (accessed Aug. 21, 2018).
21 U.S.C. § 360c(i)(1)(A).
21 C.F.R. § 807.100.
35 U.S.C. §102(a).
35 U.S.C. §103.
Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 599 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., No. 5:2008cv00543, Doc. No. 358, (N.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2012).
Am. Med. Sys. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, 712 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D. Minn. 2010).
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halt, G.B., Donch, J.C., Stiles, A.R., VanLuvanee, L.J., Theiss, B.R., Blue, D.L. (2019). Potential Combined USPTO and FDA Regulatory Pitfalls. In: FDA and Intellectual Property Strategies for Medical Device Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04462-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04462-6_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04461-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04462-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)