New patent rules overturned

A Virginia court struck down today (April 1) linkurl:new patent rules;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53497/ which pharma and biotech companies argued would have limited their ability to protect their intellectual property. The new rules, which were finalized by the US Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO) last August, limit inventors to two continuing applications, which add claims to an existing patent, and cap the total number of claims in a patent at 25. "Specifically in lif

Written byAlla Katsnelson
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
A Virginia court struck down today (April 1) linkurl:new patent rules;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53497/ which pharma and biotech companies argued would have limited their ability to protect their intellectual property. The new rules, which were finalized by the US Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO) last August, limit inventors to two continuing applications, which add claims to an existing patent, and cap the total number of claims in a patent at 25. "Specifically in life sciences that has a huge effect," Lisa Haile, a patent attorney and co-chair of the Global Life Sciences Sector at the law firm DLA Piper, told The Scientist, because the timeframe of life science discoveries is so long. Previously, inventors were allowed to file unlimited continuing applications. University-based inventors and biotech companies could file continuances as the scope of their discoveries became clearer with further research, and, for example, could extend patent coverage from one or two new molecules to an entire class of compounds. The agency, however, argued that the new rules would streamline the patent process and help reduce its backlog of cases. The rules were set to go into effect on November 1, 2007, but in response to a linkurl:lawsuit;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53705/ filed against the USPTO by GlaxoSmithKline the court issued an 11th hour temporary linkurl:injunction;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53814/ against them on October 31 while the case was in process. According to today's court ruling, the patent agency did not have the authority to make such substantive regulatory changes. Haile noted, however, that the ruling can be appealed.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

Share
July Digest 2025
July 2025, Issue 1

What Causes an Earworm?

Memory-enhancing neural networks may also drive involuntary musical loops in the brain.

View this Issue
Explore synthetic DNA’s many applications in cancer research

Weaving the Fabric of Cancer Research with Synthetic DNA

Twist Bio 
Illustrated plasmids in bright fluorescent colors

Enhancing Elution of Plasmid DNA

cytiva logo
An illustration of green lentiviral particles.

Maximizing Lentivirus Recovery

cytiva logo
Explore new strategies for improving plasmid DNA manufacturing workflows.

Overcoming Obstacles in Plasmid DNA Manufacturing

cytiva logo

Products

sartorius-logo

Introducing the iQue 5 HTS Platform: Empowering Scientists  with Unbeatable Speed and Flexibility for High Throughput Screening by Cytometry

parse_logo

Vanderbilt Selects Parse Biosciences GigaLab to Generate Atlas of Early Neutralizing Antibodies to Measles, Mumps, and Rubella

shiftbioscience

Shift Bioscience proposes improved ranking system for virtual cell models to accelerate gene target discovery

brandtechscientific-logo

BRANDTECH Scientific Launches New Website for VACUU·LAN® Lab Vacuum Systems