3

In your example, you say "patents B and C contain patent A's claims". That is not the case in your example. They build upon the information taught in patent A. The issue will be whether the claims in B and C are obvious variants from the teachings embodied in the claims of patent A. We can't tell that from "W, X, Y, Z". If adding step W at the start and ...


2

Yes, but it depends upon the claims. If the claims in the continuation are different enough from the claims in the granted patent there might be no issue of double patenting at all. If the examiner asserts that you do have double patenting it will most likely be the judicially created "obviousness" type. You can argue that the examiner is wrong or ...


2

Double patenting results when the right to exclude granted by a first patent is unjustly extended by the grant of a later issued patent or patents.The doctrine of double patenting has been created to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent. The following criteria are considered for the issue of double patenting, ...


1

What happens when a TD is taken to a patent which itself is a continuation of a patent family that now has been sold? Per 35 USC 154 (c).1: The term of a patent that is in force on or that results from an application filed before the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall be the greater of the 20-...


1

I think the word "related" is the key here. A divisional application generally cannot get an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over its parent/child/sibling. So you will not need a "terminal disclaimer". This means that you will have an easier time selling each patent to a different buyer. Also, if one patent gets a term adjustment, it will stick. ...


1

Probably not. Where the claims of an application are the same as those of a first patent, they are barred under 35 U.S.C. 101 - the statutory basis for a double patenting rejection. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and ...


1

A Terminal Disclaimer is a written statement by a patent owner stating that the owner has disclaimed, or renounced legal claim to, a period of a later-issued patent that would extend beyond the expiration of an earlier-issued patent. The terminal disclaimer avoids one type of double patenting rejection as long as both the patents are commonly owned. There ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible