the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Grace E. Kim
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Robert  Tarcu
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Frank J. West
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Alexander B. Englehart
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
John S. Kern
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.
Maki  Saitoh
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Arthur I. Neustadt
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Ryan W. Smith
Surinder  Sachar
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang
Kevin M. McKinley
Dale M. Shaw
John  Sipos
Craig R. Feinberg
Christopher I. Donahue
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Jianping (James)  Wu
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Colin B. Harris
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
Christopher  Ricciuti
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Tia D. Fenton
Robert W. Downs
Anna Z. Lloyd
Teddy S. Gron
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Eric W. Schweibenz
Brian B. Darville
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Edwin D. Garlepp
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Carl E. Schlier
Diane  Jones
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Alec M. Royka
Steven B. Chang
Aldo  Martinez
Johnny  Ma
John F. Presper
James R. Love
Yuki  Onoe
Yanwen  Fei
Robert T. Pous
Charles L. Gholz
Sameer  Gokhale
Richard D. Kelly
Soumya  Panda
Andrew M. Ollis
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Matthew H. Everhart, Ph.D.
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Kevin Ross  Davis
Norman F. Oblon
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Elissa L. Sanford

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our

History

Get to know our History

1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our

ACCOLADES

A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +


Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +

Downloadable

Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

The Recent HHS' Plan For Greater FDA - USPTO Collaboration to Lower Drug Prices: Why Pharma Patent Counsel Needs to Review FDA Submissions

  • September 22, 2021
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Technologies


In a purported effort to lower drug prices, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released a proposed plan calling for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to work with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), suggesting that such collaboration would “facilitate greater awareness of their complementary work and introduce efficiency into their respective workstreams.” This is only one part of the proposed plan, the other parts of which are not the focus of this post.

FDA acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock has additionally written to temporary USPTO head Drew Hirshfeld regarding possible ways that the two agencies could work together, such as having the FDA help train USPTO examiners on the use of FDA databases to aid in the USPTO examiners’ review of patent applications, and having the two agencies perform joint training on patent term extensions. Such measures would appear to be appropriate on the surface and might result in stronger issued patents for pharma.

These measures appear to be in light of the recent Federal Circuit ruling in Belcher v. Hospira (Belcher Pharmaceuticals  v. Hospira, Appeal No. 2020-1799 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 1, 2021)).  In that case, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that Belcher’s U.S. Patent 9,283,197 was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by Belcher’s Chief Science Officer.  The act resulting in inequitable conduct was making one statement to the USPTO regarding the composition that was the subject of the patent application claims, while making a contradictory statement to the FDA during the New Drug Application (NDA) review process.  In particular, citing the District Court record, the Federal Circuit noted that during the FDA NDA review process, “Belcher described the claimed pH range of 2.8 to 3.3 as “old”; that Belcher disclosed Stepensky, which teaches an overlapping pH range of 3.25 to 3.70; that Belcher had submitted data on Sintetica’s and JHP’s products showing a pH within the claimed range; and that Belcher switched from a lower pH range to the claimed 2.8 to 3.3 pH range at least in part to expedite FDA approval because that range matched the pH range of Sintetica’s products.” (Id. at 11).  However, before the USPTO, Belcher “did not merely withhold this information but also used emphatic language to argue that the claimed pH range of 2.8 to 3.3 was a “critical” innovation that “unexpectedly” reduced racemization.” (Id. at 11)  Further Belcher did not disclose the Stepensky reference to the USPTO, nor the Sintetica or JHP products.  More details regarding the actions that led to the finding of inequitable conduct, including the determination of the intent to deceive the USPTO examiner, can be found in the Federal Circuit ruling.  Read the full Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC. v. Hospira, Inc. Appeal here.

Why is this important?  Ultimately, this result could have been avoided if Belcher had their patent counsel review the FDA submissions to ensure that positions being taken at the USPTO during prosecution and at the FDA during the review process were not inconsistent.  This is similar to making sure that positions taken during the prosecution of foreign counterparts of a US patent application are not contradictory to positions taken before the USPTO during prosecution.  Of course, whether Belcher would have received its patent, or whether its NDA submission at the FDA would have been approved if their positions at both agencies had been consistent, is an entirely different question!

Ultimately, a pharma company should have any FDA submission reviewed by patent counsel prosecuting patent applications covering the subject of the submission, to ensure that the positions taken during the patent examination process are consistent with those taken before the FDA.  Of course, if the patent is prosecuted to allowance prior to the FDA submission process (as may often be the case), this review could also be of benefit, by having patent counsel note any conflicting positions being taken before the FDA, and working with FDA regulatory counsel to correct those positions.