Make No Mistake: Patentee Held to Terminal Disclaimer Despite Unwitting Reliance on Patent Office Error

July 23, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

A court in the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed a complaint as to one of the asserted patents where the patent included a terminal disclaimer stating that the patent would be enforceable only as long as it was co-owned with a reference patent that the PTO had misidentified. The court relied on the public notice function of the patent system to hold the plaintiff to the exact language in its terminal disclaimer, and held that the asserted patent was unenforceable from the moment it issued because it and the reference patent were never co-owned.

During prosecution, the PTO rejected the claims of the asserted patent on obviousness-type double patenting grounds over the ’267 patent. But the ’267 patent was directed to completely different subject matter and owned by a different entity. Nonetheless, plaintiff overcame that rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer stating that the asserted patent and the ’267 patent were commonly owned by plaintiff and agreeing that the asserted patent would be enforceable only during such period that it and the ’267 patent were commonly owned. But plaintiff never owned the ’267 Patent. It did own the ’268 patent, which was in the same family as the asserted patent, but not mentioned in the office action. Several years after the PTO issued the asserted patent, plaintiff petitioned to withdraw the ’267 disclaimer and replace it with a new terminal disclaimer based on the ’268 patent. The PTO denied the request to withdraw but allowed plaintiff to file a new terminal disclaimer with respect to the ’268 patent.

In its motion to dismiss, defendant argued that the terms of the terminal disclaimer were clear: the asserted patent would be enforceable only while it and the ’267 patent were commonly owned. And because the two patents were never commonly owned, the asserted patent was never enforceable. Plaintiff explained that the ’267 terminal disclaimer was ineffective because it was disconnected from the purpose of a terminal disclaimer—to resolve an obviousness-type double patenting issue. Plaintiff further argued that regulations bar a patent applicant from filing a terminal disclaimer to a patent that it does not commonly own. Finally, plaintiff argued that the mistake would be obvious to anyone reading the prosecution history of the patent.

The court acknowledged the dearth of opinions addressing an erroneous terminal disclaimer, but explained that the public is entitled to rely on the clear terms in a patentee’s terminal disclaimer.  Here, the patentee gave notice to the public that the asserted patent was unenforceable so long as it was commonly owned with the ’267 patent. The two patents were never commonly owned, and the court could not assume no member of the public ever relied on the ’267 patent disclaimer.  The court was not persuaded that the mistake was obvious because even the patentee itself did not notice the error for years. Because the ’267 disclaimer rendered the asserted patent unenforceable, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Practice Tip: Patent applicants should carefully review both the PTO’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections and their own terminal disclaimers to ensure that there are no errors. The public notice function of the patent system could lead a court to strictly interpret a terminal disclaimer as it is written, even if it refers to a patent that the PTO had erroneously identified.

SIPCO, LLC v. Jasco Prods. Co., LLC, No. CIV-19-00709-PRW (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.