{"id":39042,"date":"2026-07-02T09:59:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T13:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=39042"},"modified":"2026-05-20T11:09:27","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T15:09:27","slug":"the-double-patenting-trap-how-pharma-brands-accidentally-invalidate-their-own-moats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-double-patenting-trap-how-pharma-brands-accidentally-invalidate-their-own-moats\/","title":{"rendered":"The Double Patenting Trap: How Pharma Brands Accidentally Invalidate Their Own Moats"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"559\" src=\"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-76.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-39046\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-76.png 1024w, https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-76-300x164.png 300w, https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-76-768x419.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Quick Summary:<\/strong> Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a judicially created doctrine that prevents patent holders from stretching exclusivity by obtaining a second patent on an invention not patentably distinct from a first. In pharmaceutical patent portfolios, aggressive continuation filing strategies intended to build layered protection can backfire spectacularly: a later-granted child patent with an earlier expiration date can reach backward and invalidate the primary compound patent. After <em>In re Cellect<\/em> (2023) and <em>Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories<\/em> (2024), the rules are sharper than they have been in a generation. The commercial stakes run to hundreds of billions in threatened exclusivity revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Is Obviousness-Type Double Patenting, and Why Does It Destroy Drug Patent Moats?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a court-created rule that bars a patent owner from obtaining a second patent whose claims are not patentably distinct from claims in a first patent with common ownership or inventorship. In pharma, this means a continuation-heavy portfolio built to extend exclusivity can, if poorly managed, allow a generic or biosimilar challenger to invalidate the anchor patent using one of the brand&#8217;s own child patents as the weapon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The pharmaceutical patent moat is built on a deceptively simple idea: start with a composition-of-matter patent on the active molecule, then layer continuation and divisional applications to cover formulations, dosing regimens, manufacturing processes, and new indications. Executed correctly, that layering converts a single 20-year monopoly into 30 or even 40 years of cumulative exclusivity claims.[1] Executed carelessly, the same strategy hands generic manufacturers the legal crowbar they need to crack the primary patent years ahead of schedule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The crowbar is obviousness-type double patenting. The doctrine is not written into the Patent Act. It grew out of decades of Federal Circuit decisions and rests on a public-policy premise: when one patent expires, the public should be free to practice not just that invention but its obvious variants. If the same inventor holds a second patent covering those obvious variants, the public cannot exercise that freedom. ODP prevents that outcome by treating the second patent as invalid unless the owner files a terminal disclaimer that synchronizes its expiration date with the first.[2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trap that most brand pharmaceutical teams fail to anticipate is directional. Most IP teams think of ODP as a risk that runs from a parent patent toward its children: the parent expires first, a generic argues the child is an obvious variant of the parent, and the child falls. That is true. But the doctrine also runs in the other direction. A child patent that issues with an earlier expiration date than its parent can serve as an invalidating reference against the parent, cutting the parent&#8217;s term short. <em>Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma<\/em> [3] established that rule in 2014, and the Federal Circuit has spent the decade since working out its full consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Two Types of Double Patenting: Statutory and Non-Statutory<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before the ODP analysis matters, it helps to understand that patent law recognizes two distinct double-patenting doctrines. Statutory double patenting, sometimes called same-invention double patenting, bars a patent holder from obtaining two patents with claims that are literally identical. It is governed by 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 and is relatively rare in pharmaceutical portfolios because sophisticated prosecution counsel avoid literal duplication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Non-statutory double patenting, synonymous with obviousness-type double patenting, is the operative doctrine for the pharmaceutical industry. It is judicially created, not codified, and applies when claims in two patents are not identical but are obvious variants of each other. The legal test is a two-step analysis: first, courts construe the claims in both patents; second, they determine whether the differences between those claims are patentable, meaning they would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. If the differences are not patentable, the later-expiring patent is invalid unless cured by a terminal disclaimer.[4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How Terminal Disclaimers Work, and Where They Break Down<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A terminal disclaimer is the designated cure for ODP. When the USPTO raises an ODP rejection during prosecution, the applicant can file a terminal disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.321(c) or (d), agreeing that the second patent will not extend beyond the expiration date of the reference patent, and that both patents will remain under common ownership throughout their terms.[5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The terminal disclaimer synchronizes expiration dates. It does not admit that the rejected claims are obvious, and courts have historically held that filing a terminal disclaimer creates no such admission.[6] The disclaimer functions as a procedural escape valve: the applicant gives up the extra patent term in exchange for allowance of the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Three scenarios exist where terminal disclaimers fail to solve the problem:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The reference patent has already expired by the time the ODP issue is identified in litigation. At that point, the Federal Circuit confirmed in <em>Boehringer Ingelheim v. Barr Laboratories<\/em> [7] that a terminal disclaimer filed after expiration of the reference patent is ineffective. The later patent simply falls.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Patent Term Adjustment awarded to the challenged patent gets wiped out when a terminal disclaimer is filed to the reference patent&#8217;s expiration date. The applicant retains only the base term, not the bonus days earned through USPTO delays. <em>In re Cellect<\/em> [8] made this consequence binding precedent in August 2023.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Under the USPTO&#8217;s proposed 2024 rule (later withdrawn), patents linked by terminal disclaimers would have fallen together: invalidate one claim in one patent, and all terminally-disclaimed siblings become unenforceable. The rule was withdrawn in December 2024, but the legislative pressure behind it persists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The In Re Cellect Decision: How the Federal Circuit Rewrote the PTA Calculus<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In re Cellect (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) held that when a patent owner files a terminal disclaimer to cure an ODP rejection, any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted for USPTO prosecution delays is also disclaimed, even though PTA is a statutory right. The practical result: a pharma company that spent years building an extended patent family can lose the PTA bonus on its primary patent simply because a continuation patent issued with a slightly earlier expiration date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <em>Cellect<\/em> case did not involve a pharmaceutical product; it concerned imaging technology.[9] But the Federal Circuit&#8217;s August 2023 panel decision authored by Circuit Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna immediately became the most consequential patent ruling for the pharma industry in years, generating twelve amicus curiae briefs when Cellect sought rehearing en banc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The mechanics of the holding are precise but the commercial consequence is blunt. Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 154(b), the USPTO grants Patent Term Adjustment when its own examination delays push issuance past the three-year target. PTA is a statutory right, not a grace period; Congress created it specifically to compensate applicants for time lost to USPTO backlogs. A patent with 800 days of PTA can protect a drug compound for more than two extra years beyond the nominal 20-year term, translating at blockbuster revenue rates to billions of additional gross margin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Cellect<\/em> established that ODP analysis for PTA-extended patents uses the post-PTA expiration date, not the base expiration date. So if a parent patent expires in 2030 after its full base term but a continuation child expires in 2029 because it received no PTA, the parent&#8217;s 2030 expiration date looks like an extension beyond the child&#8217;s term. An ODP challenge using the child as a reference patent now threatens the parent&#8217;s PTA. When the parent files a terminal disclaimer to the child&#8217;s 2029 expiration, the parent loses its PTA and expires in 2029 as well. The bonus disappears.[10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The January 2024 denial of Cellect&#8217;s rehearing petition closed the door at the Federal Circuit. Cellect then filed a certiorari petition at the Supreme Court in May 2024. The Supreme Court denied cert, leaving <em>Cellect<\/em> as binding precedent.[11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8216;More than 380,000 patents were issued in fiscal year 2022 alone. In re Cellect robs innovators of both time and money, because every day of patent term can be worth tens of millions of dollars. It turns guarantees to uncertainty and denies diligent US inventors promised patent terms.&#8217;Bloomberg Law, May 2024 [11]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why PTA and PTE Are Treated Differently Under ODP Analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the most counterintuitive aspects of the post-<em>Cellect<\/em> world is the asymmetry between Patent Term Adjustment and Patent Term Extension. PTE, governed by 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 156, compensates patent holders for time lost during FDA regulatory review. It applies to approved drug products and can add up to five years to a patent&#8217;s term. The Federal Circuit established in <em>Merck v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal<\/em> [12] and confirmed in <em>Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures<\/em> [13] that ODP analysis does not apply to the PTE portion of a patent&#8217;s term. A terminal disclaimer is applied to the base term before PTE is added; the PTE survives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">PTA works the opposite way. <em>Cellect<\/em> held that ODP analysis applies to the full post-PTA expiration date. A terminal disclaimer cuts off not just the base term overlap but the PTA bonus as well. The practical consequence for pharmaceutical prosecution is that PTE-extended patents are safer from ODP attacks than PTA-extended patents, even though both represent statutory rights designed to restore lost exclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This divergence creates a prosecution strategy choice. For a drug product that will eventually earn PTE, it can be more advantageous to accept USPTO delays and wait for a PTE application than to aggressively pursue expedited examination to maximize PTA. The decision depends on the probability of PTE eligibility, the likely duration of the FDA review period, and whether the continuation family creates ODP exposure. Every one of those variables requires case-by-case analysis, and getting it wrong can cost years of exclusivity on a billion-dollar franchise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What In Re Cellect Means for Pharmaceutical Patent Portfolio Strategy After 2023<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The immediate effect was a wave of portfolio audits across large pharma IP departments. The risk exposure is not theoretical: <em>Cellect<\/em> itself involved patents whose reference patents had already expired by the time the litigation concluded, foreclosing any terminal disclaimer remedy. That extreme scenario, a PTA-extended patent invalidated by an expired family member with no path to correction, represents the worst case and it is entirely plausible in a mature drug patent family.[9]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For pharma-specific portfolios, the risks cluster around four patterns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A primary compound patent earned PTA because of a contested prosecution. A later continuation covering a formulation issued quickly with no PTA, giving it an earlier expiration date. The formulation patent now threatens the compound patent&#8217;s PTA under <em>Cellect<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A brand files multiple continuation applications at different points in prosecution history, resulting in a constellation of patents with overlapping claims. The earliest-expiring patent in the constellation serves as an ODP reference for every later-expiring family member that claims obvious variants.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A patent term extension is sought for the primary compound patent. The PTE calculation starts from the base expiration date, not the PTA-extended date. A terminal disclaimer filed to cure ODP cuts off PTA but leaves PTE intact, so the net exclusivity period may still be acceptable. But the arithmetic is non-trivial and must be done at filing, not at trial.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A divisional application issued as the result of a restriction requirement carries a \u00a7 121 safe harbor that can, under certain conditions, shield it from ODP challenges. The safe harbor requires strict consonance between the restriction requirement and the divided claims. Deviation from that consonance destroys the protection, as <em>Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline<\/em> [14] demonstrated with Augmentin.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories: The Federal Circuit Draws a New Line in 2024<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024) held that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim sharing a common priority date. The decision clarified and partially limited In re Cellect, protecting parent patents from ODP attacks launched using their own continuation children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Viberzi (eluxadoline) treats irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. It was approved by the FDA in 2015 and listed in the Orange Book under several Allergan patents. When Sun Pharmaceutical filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification in July 2019 and gave Allergan notice in October 2020, Allergan sued within the Hatch-Waxman 45-day window.[15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The anchor patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356, issued from the first-ever patent application to cover eluxadoline, originally filed by Janssen on March 14, 2005. Due to prosecution delays, the &#8216;356 patent accrued 1,107 days of PTA. Allergan disclaimed all but 467 of those days to preserve eligibility for PTE.[16] The continuation patents that followed, the &#8216;011 and &#8216;709 patents, were filed later and issued later than the &#8216;356 patent. They also expire earlier, precisely because they received little or no PTA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The District of Delaware, applying <em>In re Cellect<\/em>, found claim 40 of the &#8216;356 patent invalid for ODP over the later-filed, later-issued children. The court reasoned that what matters under <em>Cellect<\/em> is expiration date, and the &#8216;356 patent&#8217;s post-PTA expiration date was later than both children&#8217;s expiration dates. The primary compound claim on eluxadoline was therefore invalid.[17]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Federal Circuit reversed. Writing for the panel, the court held that <em>Cellect<\/em>&#8216;s expiration-date framework was never intended to allow a later-filed, later-issued child patent to reach backward in time and invalidate the parent that predated it. The purposes of ODP, preventing unjust extension of patent monopolies and avoiding harassment of the public by multiple patent-holders claiming the same invention, are not served by allowing a child to undermine its parent. The court stated that &#8216;a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim having a common priority date.'[18]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How the Federal Circuit Distinguished Allergan from Cellect<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The key factual distinction is priority sequence. In <em>Cellect<\/em>, the patents with shorter terms due to no PTA had been filed earlier and issued earlier than the challenged longer-term patent. The challenged patent effectively extended exclusivity beyond what the reference patent had established. That fits the classical ODP concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Allergan<\/em>, the reference patents (the &#8216;011 and &#8216;709 patents) were filed after the &#8216;356 patent and issued after the &#8216;356 patent. They simply happened to expire first because they accumulated less PTA. Allowing them to invalidate the patent that predated them would mean the original compound patent, filed in 2005 and issued first, could be knocked down by its own progeny. The Federal Circuit found this result incompatible with both the logic of ODP and the congressional intent behind PTA.[18]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical guidance from <em>Allergan<\/em> for pharmaceutical companies is precise: a parent patent is protected from ODP attacks by its own children if that parent was first-filed and first-issued. But if a continuation of that parent issues before the parent and expires before the parent, <em>Cellect<\/em> still applies. The shield is not universal. It protects only the filing-and-issuance sequence that flows from original application to continuation, not the reverse or lateral cases where timing scrambles that sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sun Pharmaceutical&#8217;s Petition for Rehearing En Banc<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sun Pharmaceutical petitioned for rehearing en banc after the <em>Allergan<\/em> decision, arguing that the Federal Circuit&#8217;s new rule creates uncertainty and inconsistency across the ODP doctrine. As of early 2025, that petition remained pending, keeping the precise boundaries of post-<em>Allergan<\/em> ODP law in flux.[19] Brand pharmaceutical companies cannot treat the <em>Allergan<\/em> holding as a complete solution to the ODP problem. The underlying tension between continuation-heavy pharmaceutical prosecution strategies and the ODP doctrine has not been resolved; it has only been partially addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case Study: How Boehringer Ingelheim Lost Mirapex Exclusivity Through a Timing Error<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Boehringer Ingelheim&#8217;s Mirapex (pramipexole) patent estate lost a critical patent to ODP because Boehringer attempted to file a terminal disclaimer after the reference parent patent had already expired. The district court and Federal Circuit both held the late-filed disclaimer ineffective, leaving the challenged patent invalid for double patenting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pramipexole, the active ingredient in Mirapex, is a dopamine agonist used in Parkinson&#8217;s disease and restless legs syndrome. Boehringer held U.S. Patent No. 4,866,812, a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 4,731,086. The &#8216;086 patent expired on June 27, 2006. The &#8216;812 patent, a divisional of the &#8216;086, expired later due to patent term extension and had an extended term stretching beyond the &#8216;086&#8217;s expiration.[7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mylan Pharmaceuticals challenged the &#8216;812 patent for ODP over the &#8216;086 patent. Boehringer responded near the end of trial in March 2008 by filing a terminal disclaimer, attempting to disclaim the portion of the &#8216;812 patent&#8217;s original term that extended beyond the &#8216;086 patent&#8217;s term. The problem: the &#8216;086 had expired nearly two years earlier, in June 2006. The district court held the terminal disclaimer ineffective. Boehringer then argued that 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 121&#8217;s safe harbor provision shielded the &#8216;812 patent from ODP challenge because it arose from a restriction requirement in the original application. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument as well, finding that the safe harbor requirements were not met.[7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Mirapex case is a textbook demonstration of timing failure. The ODP problem existed in the patent family throughout the prosecution history. It was not identified and resolved before the &#8216;086 patent expired, which permanently foreclosed the terminal disclaimer remedy. The failure was not a deliberate decision to skip the terminal disclaimer; it was the consequence of a patent family that was not regularly audited for cross-patent expiration conflicts. By the time Mylan raised the issue in litigation, Boehringer had no available cure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Gilead v. Natco Rule: When a Later-Issued Patent Shoots the Earlier One<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The 2014 <em>Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma<\/em> decision introduced the version of ODP that makes patent managers most uncomfortable. Gilead owned U.S. Patent Nos. 5,763,483 and 5,952,375, both directed to antiviral compounds. The &#8216;483 patent issued first and expires later. The &#8216;375 patent issued second but expires first because its priority date under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act differs. The two patents share the same inventors and overlapping written descriptions but were not filed as a common patent family.[3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Natco, filing an ANDA for a generic version of a Gilead drug covered by the &#8216;483 patent, argued the &#8216;483 was invalid for ODP over the &#8216;375. The district court dismissed the argument, reasoning that a later-issued patent cannot serve as an ODP reference against an earlier-issued patent. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that what matters for ODP is expiration date, not issuance date. If the &#8216;375 expires first, it establishes the baseline term. The &#8216;483&#8217;s later expiration, claiming obvious variants of the &#8216;375, constitutes the extension that ODP prohibits.[3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical implication for pharmaceutical prosecution is that two patents on closely related inventions in the same technical area, even if not formally in the same patent family, can trigger ODP against each other if they share inventorship. Any patent that expires later than a sibling covering obvious variants is at risk. Pharmaceutical companies that manage separate patent families for related drug candidates without coordinating expiration dates have created ODP exposure across what they may have treated as legally independent assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How Gilead Created a Cross-Family ODP Risk That Most Brands Still Underestimate<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The pharma industry&#8217;s response to <em>Gilead<\/em> was to update prosecution guidelines for active portfolios. What many teams missed is that the risk extends to historical portfolios as well. Any drug product protected by two or more patents from related research programs, even if prosecuted under separate application numbers, now needs to be audited for <em>Gilead<\/em>-style cross-reference ODP risk. The test is simple in theory: do the claims of the two patents overlap in subject matter in a way that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill? If yes, which one expires first? If the one with broader or foundational claims expires second, it now carries ODP risk from the other. This exercise, run systematically across a large pharmaceutical portfolio, can surface a substantial number of previously unrecognized exposure points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline: When Augmentin&#8217;s Patent Thicket Became a Liability<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Augmentin franchise (amoxicillin\/clavulanic acid) gave GlaxoSmithKline decades of commercial dominance in the antibiotic market. GSK&#8217;s Orange Book listings included patents from the original clavulanic acid discovery through a range of formulation and combination patents. When generic manufacturers challenged the later patents for ODP, GSK&#8217;s defense relied heavily on the 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 121 safe harbor, which protects divisional patents from ODP challenges over each other when they arose from restriction requirements properly applied by the USPTO.[14]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Federal Circuit&#8217;s 2003 analysis in <em>Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline<\/em> established that the \u00a7 121 safe harbor requires consonance: the claims in each divisional must stay within the scope of the distinct invention identified in the examiner&#8217;s original restriction requirement. When claims migrate outside that scope through prosecution amendments, the safe harbor dissolves. GSK&#8217;s Augmentin patents failed this test on several claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity for ODP on those claims.[14]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The lesson from Augmentin is that the \u00a7 121 safe harbor is not a filing strategy; it is a prosecution discipline. It requires tracking the restriction requirement&#8217;s defined scope throughout every subsequent amendment in every divisional application. In a large pharmaceutical prosecution with multiple continuing applications filed over 10 to 15 years, and potentially overseen by different prosecution counsel at different firms across that span, maintaining consonance requires explicit documentation and regular review. Most prosecution teams do not have systems that enforce consonance tracking. GSK did not. The result was unnecessary patent invalidations in a franchise that had otherwise been successfully protected for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The \u00a7 121 Safe Harbor: What It Protects and What It Does Not<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 121 of the Patent Act creates a specific protection for inventions that the USPTO separates through a restriction requirement. When an examiner requires restriction between two inventions in a single application, applications filed for the inventions that were restricted out of the original application are protected from ODP challenge over each other. The restriction requirement itself is the boundary marker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The safe harbor has four preconditions that all must be met:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The divisional application must have resulted directly from a restriction requirement, not from a voluntary election to pursue claims in a separate application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The claims in the divisional must correspond to the invention that was restricted out in the original application, not to the retained invention. This is the consonance requirement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The restriction requirement must have been made by the USPTO, not by the applicant through a restriction by petition or agreed-upon division.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The challenge must be under ODP, not under prior art obviousness; the \u00a7 121 shield does not protect against \u00a7 103 rejections based on the prior art.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A 2023 Duane Morris case analysis of the <em>Acadia Pharmaceuticals v. MSN Pharmaceuticals<\/em> litigation demonstrates that the safe harbor remains viable, but only when prosecuted with precision. Acadia successfully defended U.S. Patent No. 8,309,740 covering pimavanserin (Nuplazid) against MSN&#8217;s ODP challenge by establishing that the divisional arose properly from a restriction requirement and that consonance had been maintained throughout prosecution.[4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How Pharmaceutical Companies Build the Double Patenting Trap Into Their Own Portfolios<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Most ODP exposure in pharmaceutical portfolios does not arise from calculated risk-taking. It arises from structural features of pharmaceutical prosecution that create ODP problems as a side effect of otherwise rational strategy choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Continuation Filing Treadmill and How It Breeds ODP Exposure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pharmaceutical patent prosecution is continuation-heavy by design. An innovator discovers a lead compound, files a patent application, then spends the next decade in clinical development. As clinical data accumulates, the prosecution team files continuations to capture new claim scopes: specific dosing regimens validated in Phase 3, crystalline forms identified during formulation development, new patient populations discovered in Phase 2, manufacturing improvements that reduce impurity profiles. Each continuation is a legitimate patent application covering a real advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ODP problem emerges not from the purpose of each continuation but from the arithmetic of their expiration dates. A compound patent filed in 2004 and issued in 2011 after a contested prosecution might carry 1,200 days of PTA, giving it an effective expiration in 2030. A formulation continuation filed in 2012 and issued in 2014 through a smooth prosecution carries no PTA and expires in 2032 from its own 20-year term. Now the formulation patent expires after the compound patent. Under the post-<em>Allergan<\/em> framework, because the compound patent was first-filed and first-issued, it retains protection from ODP attack by the formulation patent. But what if the prosecution history is messier? What if the compound patent was refiled or had gaps in its priority chain? What if the formulation patent was actually filed before a divisional compound patent through a family restructuring?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These scenarios are not hypothetical. They are common in pharmaceutical portfolios that have been acquired, out-licensed, re-licensed, or managed by multiple prosecution firms over long development timelines. A company that acquires a clinical-stage asset inherits whatever ODP exposure existed in the prosecution history, whether or not it was disclosed in due diligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Patent Term Adjustment Asymmetry Within the Same Family<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A concrete example of how PTA creates accidental ODP exposure: Company X holds a primary patent on a kinase inhibitor compound with 400 days of PTA, expiring December 2030. Company X&#8217;s continuation covering its salt form was filed one year later but prosecuted quickly, issuing with zero PTA and expiring October 2029. The compound patent expires 14 months after the salt form patent. Pre-<em>Cellect<\/em>, this was understood as a minor timing difference with no ODP consequence. Post-<em>Cellect<\/em>, if the company files a terminal disclaimer to cure an ODP rejection in a different part of the portfolio that happens to tie the compound patent to the salt form patent, the compound patent loses its 400 PTA days. It now expires in October 2029, not December 2030. Those 14 months, at blockbuster revenues, can represent over $1 billion in gross margin depending on the drug.[10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The deeper problem is that pharmaceutical patent families often contain dozens of patents, and terminal disclaimers may have been filed between various family members at different prosecution stages for housekeeping reasons, not because the ODP problem was severe. Each historical terminal disclaimer now functions as a potential trip wire under the <em>Cellect<\/em> framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How Patent Thickets Create Systemic ODP Risk: The Humira Model<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AbbVie&#8217;s adalimumab (Humira) portfolio represents the industry&#8217;s most-studied example of intentional patent thicket construction. <em>Humira<\/em> is protected by more than 250 granted patents covering the antibody molecule, its manufacturing process, its formulations, its dosing regimens, and its indications. <em>One analysis found 436 instances of terminal disclaimers within the Humira portfolio, indicating that AbbVie&#8217;s prosecution team routinely resolved ODP rejections by filing terminal disclaimers as a matter of course.<\/em>[20]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From a revenue-protection standpoint, the thicket worked: biosimilar entry into the U.S. market was delayed until January 2023, seven years after the primary composition-of-matter patent expired in 2016, and AbbVie secured approximately $74 billion in additional U.S. revenue during that window.[21] But the strategy&#8217;s success came at a price that the industry is still calculating: an estimated 80% of the Humira U.S. patent portfolio consists of non-patentably distinct, duplicative patents linked together by terminal disclaimers.[22] Each terminal disclaimer is a linking mechanism that could, under a reformed legal framework or a sufficiently aggressive generic litigation strategy, create cascading invalidity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the USPTO&#8217;s proposed May 2024 terminal disclaimer rule (withdrawn in December 2024), if any claim in any patent linked to another by a chain of terminal disclaimers was found invalid for anticipation or obviousness, all patents in the chain would become unenforceable.[23] Applied to a Humira-style portfolio, a single successful IPR on one formulation claim could have rendered hundreds of other AbbVie patents simultaneously unenforceable. The rule&#8217;s withdrawal under pressure from pharmaceutical and technology industry stakeholders, as well as five former USPTO directors, temporarily preserved the current framework.[24] But the underlying policy pressure has not dissipated, and Congress has explored legislative remedies that would accomplish the same result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Tools like <a href=\"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">DrugPatentWatch<\/a> give competitive intelligence analysts and generic manufacturers real-time visibility into terminal disclaimer linkages across pharmaceutical patent families. Using DrugPatentWatch&#8217;s database, a generic manufacturer can identify every patent in a brand&#8217;s thicket that shares a terminal disclaimer chain, map the weakest links, and prioritize IPR petitions or Paragraph IV certifications at the patents most likely to produce chain-collapse effects. The same data is available to brand pharmaceutical IP teams, which is precisely why the <em>Humira<\/em> model requires continuous monitoring rather than one-time filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The ODP Risk Landscape for Specific Drug Patent Scenarios in 2025 and 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Small-Molecule Drugs with PTA-Heavy Compound Patents: Which Assets Are Most Exposed?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A 2024 study published in JAMA examining drug patent litigation data found that among 2,890 small-molecule drug patents subject to litigation, 1,365 (47%) had ODP rejections and terminal disclaimers on record. Of 241 small-molecule drug patents that were invalidated in that dataset, 100 (41%) had prior ODP rejections and terminal disclaimers.[25] The correlation is not causal in a simple sense, but it describes a population of patents where the ODP history during prosecution becomes a predictable litigation battleground later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For 2025 and 2026, the highest-ODP-risk small-molecule franchises share several characteristics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The primary compound patent carries more than 600 days of PTA and has not had a PTE application filed for it.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>At least one continuation in the same family expires earlier than the compound patent and claims subject matter that overlaps substantially with the compound&#8217;s claims.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The prosecution file history includes terminal disclaimers filed at multiple prosecution stages without a systematic analysis of which patent expires latest within the linked group.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The patent family was acquired from a smaller company and the acquirer has not conducted a comprehensive ODP audit of the target&#8217;s prosecution histories.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Biologic Patent Thickets and Biosimilar Entry: Does ODP Work Differently for Large Molecules?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ODP applies to biologic patents in the same way it applies to small-molecule patents. However, the complexity of biologic patent thickets, which can involve hundreds of patents covering antibody structures, manufacturing cell lines, purification methods, and specific indications, creates proportionally greater ODP exposure across interconnected terminal disclaimer chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal mechanics of ODP do not distinguish between small-molecule and biologic patents. A continuation covering a biologic formulation that is an obvious variant of a prior formulation patent is equally vulnerable to ODP challenge as its small-molecule equivalent. What differs is scale and interdependence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For a biologic like adalimumab or ustekinumab (Stelara), the patent portfolio spans manufacturing process patents, cell line patents, purification patents, formulation patents, dosing regimen patents, and indication-specific use patents. Each category generates continuation families. Each continuation family can create ODP exposure with other family members. Terminal disclaimers link patents across and within these categories. The result is a web of interdependencies where an ODP attack on any node can, in theory, propagate outward through terminal disclaimer chains to affect other nodes.[22]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For biosimilar manufacturers, this complexity is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge: identifying the precise set of patents that must be cleared or challenged to enable a lawful commercial launch. The opportunity: a well-designed ODP attack against one patent in a large biologic thicket can use the terminal disclaimer linkages to undermine multiple other patents simultaneously, even if those additional patents were not directly challenged in the litigation. This is precisely the outcome that the withdrawn 2024 USPTO terminal disclaimer rule would have formalized, and which Congress may yet seek to accomplish through statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The BIOSIMILARS Act&#8217;s patent dance process under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 262(l) creates a structured disclosure framework that forces biosimilar manufacturers to identify which patents they will challenge and on what grounds. ODP is a valid infringement defense and invalidity ground in that process. Biosimilar manufacturers that use DrugPatentWatch to map terminal disclaimer chains in a reference biologic&#8217;s portfolio can systematically identify ODP attack opportunities that were not apparent from a surface-level Orange Book review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Paragraph IV Certification Strategy and Double Patenting: What Generic Manufacturers Do With ODP<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When a generic manufacturer files an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification under 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), it asserts that one or more Orange Book-listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product. ODP is one of the most common invalidity defenses raised in Paragraph IV litigation, and for good reason: it is a doctrine that uses the brand&#8217;s own prosecution history against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How ANDA Filers Use Terminal Disclaimer Records to Identify ODP Targets<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Terminal disclaimers are public records. They appear in the patent file history available through the USPTO&#8217;s Patent Center, and they are indexed by services like DrugPatentWatch, which links them to Orange Book patent listings and ANDA filing histories. A generic manufacturer preparing a Paragraph IV strategy begins by mapping every Orange Book-listed patent for the target drug to its prosecution history, identifying all terminal disclaimer filings, and constructing a cross-reference matrix showing which patents are linked to which others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From that matrix, the manufacturer can identify chains of terminal disclaimers linking PTA-heavy patents to earlier-expiring siblings, potential <em>Cellect<\/em>-type exposure where the PTA bonus is at risk, and cases where a terminal disclaimer was filed after the reference patent&#8217;s expiration (the <em>Boehringer<\/em> scenario), rendering the disclaimer ineffective and the challenged patent already invalid. The manufacturer&#8217;s litigation team then tests these exposure points against the <em>Allergan<\/em> framework to determine whether the first-filed, first-issued protection applies, and against the <em>Gilead<\/em> framework to determine whether cross-family ODP applies to separate patent families covering related compounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The 180-Day Exclusivity Incentive and How It Shapes ODP Litigation Timing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the first generic manufacturer to file a Paragraph IV certification and successfully challenge or avoid an Orange Book-listed patent earns 180 days of market exclusivity before subsequent generic manufacturers can enter. This exclusivity period, available only to the first filer, is the primary financial incentive for generic patent litigation. For a blockbuster drug with $5 billion in annual U.S. sales, 180 days of first-filer exclusivity at even modest market share represents hundreds of millions in revenue.[26]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ODP challenges are particularly attractive as first-filer strategies because they operate on the brand&#8217;s internal prosecution history rather than on external prior art. An ODP challenge does not require finding a prior art reference; it requires finding an inconsistency in the brand&#8217;s own portfolio. Inconsistencies in portfolio-level expiration dates are common, especially in large pharmaceutical families where patent prosecution has spanned more than a decade. And an ODP challenge that succeeds against the primary compound patent does not merely open the door for one generic; it eliminates the brand&#8217;s ability to block entry at the base exclusivity level, collapsing the entire downstream thicket built on top of that compound patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Settlement Dynamics When ODP Is the Dominant Invalidity Defense<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When a Paragraph IV case turns primarily on an ODP defense, the settlement calculus for brand companies changes significantly compared to cases centered on prior art obviousness or written description. An ODP challenge, if it succeeds, does not merely invalidate the asserted patent; it can create a precedent that affects every terminally-disclaimed sibling in the family. A brand company facing a strong ODP case against its primary compound patent cannot settle by agreeing to an entry date in, say, 2032 if the ODP challenge, if fully litigated to judgment, would invalidate the compound patent immediately and open the door for every other ANDA filer simultaneously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The result is a compressed settlement window. Brands facing credible ODP challenges tend to settle earlier and at more favorable terms for generic manufacturers than cases where the invalidity defense is weaker or less systemic. This is why a sophisticated first filer that uses DrugPatentWatch to identify a strong ODP exposure in a blockbuster&#8217;s patent family can generate not just a faster settlement but a significantly earlier launch date and a lower royalty rate than generic manufacturers who challenge the same patents on traditional prior art grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The USPTO&#8217;s Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule: What It Would Have Done, Why It Was Withdrawn, and What Comes Next<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On May 10, 2024, the USPTO published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would have materially changed the risk profile of terminal disclaimers in patent portfolios. The proposed rule would have required any terminal disclaimer filed to overcome an ODP rejection to include an agreement that the subject patent will be unenforceable if any claim in any patent linked to it through a chain of terminal disclaimers is finally found invalid for anticipation or obviousness by a federal court or by the USPTO, or is statutorily disclaimed after an anticipation or obviousness challenge has been made.[23]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In plain terms: patents linked by terminal disclaimer chains would fall together. Knock out one claim in one patent, and the entire chain collapses into unenforceability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Who Opposed the Rule and Why It Was Withdrawn in December 2024<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The proposed rule attracted more than 300 public comments during its 60-day comment window. Opposition came from an unusual alliance: major pharmaceutical companies, technology companies, universities, small biotech firms, and five former USPTO directors and deputy directors wrote jointly to Director Kathi Vidal urging withdrawal.[24] The Federal Trade Commission, by contrast, submitted a comment supporting the rule as a pro-competitive measure that would reduce the cost of challenging patent thickets.[27]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The patent bar&#8217;s central objection was that the rule would create disproportionate consequences from minor prosecution decisions. Filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome a housekeeping ODP rejection in one patent would make the entire family hostage to the validity of every other terminally-disclaimed patent in the chain. A single successful IPR petition on an obscure formulation claim, even one with no real commercial significance, could render the primary compound patent unenforceable. The consequences would fall particularly hard on biotech companies and universities whose licensing revenue depends on patent enforceability across families.[28]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The USPTO withdrew the rule on December 4, 2024. The Federal Register withdrawal notice cited resource constraints and did not address the substantive objections.[29] But the policy concern driving the proposal, that terminal-disclaimer-linked patent thickets impose disproportionate competition burdens on generic and biosimilar manufacturers without corresponding innovation benefit, has not been resolved. Congressional attention to pharmaceutical patent thickets remains high, and legislative proposals targeting terminal disclaimer-linked patent families have been introduced in both chambers. The rule&#8217;s withdrawal is a pause, not a resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legislative Proposals Targeting Terminal Disclaimer Chains: Current Status in 2026<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The PREVAIL Act and several other bipartisan bills introduced in 2024 and 2025 would permit generic and biosimilar manufacturers to challenge patent thickets by requiring brand pharmaceutical companies to identify a single &#8216;lead patent&#8217; in a terminal-disclaimer-linked chain for litigation purposes. Under those proposals, a challenger that defeats the lead patent would gain protection against subsequent enforcement of all other patents in the same terminal disclaimer chain, effectively accomplishing through statute what the USPTO&#8217;s proposed rule would have accomplished through regulation.[25]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Whether any of these proposals advance depends on broader healthcare pricing legislation dynamics that extend well beyond IP law. But the direction of policy pressure is clear and has been consistent since at least 2019: Congress views pharmaceutical patent thickets, and the terminal disclaimer practices that enable them, as a drug-pricing problem as much as an IP policy problem. That framing makes legislative action more probable than it would be in a purely IP context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How to Audit a Pharmaceutical Patent Portfolio for Double Patenting Exposure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A systematic ODP audit requires working through the patent family in a defined sequence. The goal is not merely to identify whether ODP rejections were made during prosecution; it is to identify whether the terminal disclaimers filed to cure those rejections created new risks under the post-<em>Cellect<\/em> and post-<em>Allergan<\/em> framework, and whether any uncured ODP exposure exists in the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Step-by-Step ODP Audit Framework for Pharma IP Teams<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The audit has six phases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Family mapping.<\/strong> Use DrugPatentWatch and USPTO Patent Center to identify every patent and application in the drug&#8217;s patent family, including patents from acquired companies, licensed-in assets, and any patents covering related compounds with overlapping inventorship. This phase produces a complete family tree organized by filing date, issuance date, and calculated expiration date including PTA and PTE.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Terminal disclaimer inventory.<\/strong> For each patent in the family, identify every terminal disclaimer on file, the reference patent or application cited in each disclaimer, and the effective expiration date after each disclaimer. Build a terminal disclaimer chain map showing which patents are linked to which others through single or multiple levels of terminal disclaimers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Expiration sequence analysis.<\/strong> Organize the family by expiration date. Identify every instance where a later-filed, later-issued patent expires after an earlier-filed, earlier-issued patent. These are the scenarios where <em>Allergan<\/em>&#8216;s protection applies. Separately identify every instance where an earlier-expiring patent (regardless of filing sequence) covers subject matter that is obvious in view of a later-expiring patent. These are the <em>Gilead<\/em>-type cross-reference risks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>PTA sensitivity analysis.<\/strong> For each PTA-extended patent in the family, model the effect of terminal disclaimer filing to each possible reference patent. Quantify the days of PTA that would be lost under each scenario. This analysis identifies which terminal disclaimers have the most material exclusivity impact and should be contested rather than filed as a matter of administrative convenience.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>\u00a7 121 safe harbor eligibility review.<\/strong> For each divisional patent in the family, review the restriction requirement in the parent application and trace the consonance of claims through prosecution. Identify any claim amendments that may have introduced subject matter outside the scope of the restricted invention, which would destroy the safe harbor protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Remediation prioritization.<\/strong> Based on the audit findings, develop a ranked list of ODP risks by potential commercial impact. For risks that can still be cured through terminal disclaimer filing (where no reference patent has yet expired), file proactively before litigation raises the issue. For risks that cannot be cured (because the reference patent has expired), model the probability that a generic challenger will identify and assert the exposure, and adjust the LOE forecast accordingly.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">When to File a Terminal Disclaimer Proactively vs. When to Argue the ODP Rejection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Every ODP rejection during prosecution presents a binary decision: file a terminal disclaimer and accept the expiration-date consequence, or argue the rejection on the merits and accept the cost and delay of appeal. The economics of that decision are rarely analyzed with sufficient rigor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Filing a terminal disclaimer is faster and cheaper. It avoids PTAB appeal or Federal Circuit challenge. It allows the application to proceed to allowance. But it permanently reduces the challenged patent&#8217;s effective term. For a patent that is unlikely to be commercially significant beyond the reference patent&#8217;s expiration date anyway, the cost is negligible. For a patent covering the primary compound on a $10 billion drug with substantial PTA, the cost of an unnecessary terminal disclaimer can be measured in the hundreds of millions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The argument to contest the ODP rejection should be made whenever:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The claims in the challenged patent are genuinely patentably distinct from the reference patent&#8217;s claims on a detailed claim-by-claim analysis.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The \u00a7 121 safe harbor applies because the challenged patent arose from a restriction requirement and consonance has been maintained.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The reference patent was filed after the challenged patent and issued after the challenged patent, making <em>Allergan<\/em>&#8216;s protection applicable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The claimed distinction rests on unexpected results or long-felt need that can be documented with clinical data, though the Federal Circuit&#8217;s requirement that unexpected results be compared to the applicant&#8217;s own prior claims, not just to the prior art, makes this defense difficult to sustain in practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Loss of Exclusivity Risk Modeling: How ODP Changes the Forecast<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Standard pharmaceutical LOE models treat the patent expiration date as the primary input and apply probabilistic adjustments for litigation outcomes, settlement timing, and regulatory exclusivity periods. ODP risk requires a modification to that framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Adjusting NPV Models for Unresolved ODP Exposure in Drug Patent Families<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A drug patent family with known but unresolved ODP exposure has a probability-weighted effective patent term that is shorter than the nominal term shown in the Orange Book. The probability that a generic challenger will identify and successfully litigate the ODP exposure depends on: the completeness of the generic&#8217;s patent clearance search, the clarity of the ODP exposure in the prosecution history, whether the reference patent has already expired (which would make cure impossible), the strength of any \u00a7 121 safe harbor defense, and the applicability of the post-<em>Allergan<\/em> first-filed, first-issued protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For a portfolio with a primary compound patent carrying 800 days of PTA, an earlier-expiring child patent covering obvious salt forms, and a history of terminal disclaimers filed across the family, a reasonable LOE model should apply a discount to the nominal expiration date to reflect the ODP-triggered curtailment risk. The size of that discount depends on the factors above and on how aggressively the brand intends to contest any ODP challenge in litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Between 2025 and 2030, the pharmaceutical industry faces a patent cliff that puts an estimated $200 billion to $400 billion in branded drug revenue at risk.[44] Within that aggregate, a subset of assets carries ODP exposure that standard LOE forecasting does not capture. Institutional investors, acquiring companies, and licensing partners who use DrugPatentWatch to screen patent families for ODP risk have an informational advantage over counterparties who rely only on Orange Book expiration dates and FDA exclusivity periods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Humira Revenue Erosion as a Biosimilar LOE Case Study: What ODP Contributed<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Humira&#8217;s U.S. revenue fell from $21.2 billion in 2022 to $9 billion in 2024 following the entry of biosimilar competition.[43] The timing of that entry, January 2023 rather than the mid-2030s when the last thicket patents would have expired without challenge, was enabled in part by patent settlements that AbbVie reached with every major biosimilar manufacturer. Those settlements reflected the litigation risk profile of a 136-patent portfolio in which 80% of the patents are non-patentably distinct duplicates linked by terminal disclaimers, and in which any single successful invalidity determination could, under aggressive but not implausible legal theories, cascade through the terminal disclaimer chain to undermine the remaining portfolio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AbbVie&#8217;s decision to settle rather than litigate each biosimilar manufacturer to exhaustion was commercially rational. But the settlement terms, which allowed earlier entry than the latest Orange Book patents would otherwise have permitted, reflected the ODP and terminal disclaimer chain risks embedded in the portfolio as much as they reflected AbbVie&#8217;s desire to negotiate royalty revenue rather than face binary patent risk. The Humira LOE trajectory is the model for how ODP embedded in a patent thicket accelerates effective exclusivity loss even when no individual patent is actually adjudicated invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Prosecution Strategies That Reduce Double Patenting Exposure Without Sacrificing Coverage<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Front-Loading Claims Into Fewer Applications: The Breadth-Depth Tradeoff<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the cleaner responses to the post-<em>Cellect<\/em> landscape is to pursue more claims of varying scope in a single application rather than filing the same breadth across multiple continuation applications. If the formulation claims, dosing claims, and process claims can all be pursued in a single application, there is no inter-patent ODP risk within those claim sets; ODP only operates across patents, not across claims within a patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The tradeoff is prosecution flexibility. Separate continuation applications allow the prosecution team to tailor each application&#8217;s claim scope, specification support, and prosecution strategy to the specific claim type. A formulation application can reference formulation-specific examples without complicating the compound patent&#8217;s prosecution history. Combining all claims into a single application creates dependencies: if the compound claims face a prior art problem, it affects the application containing the formulation claims as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For drugs in early development stages, the front-loading approach is more viable. For drugs that have already been approved and are mid-lifecycle, consolidation is impractical. The practical tool for mid-lifecycle portfolios is a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 251, which allows a patent owner to seek broader or different claims after original issuance, potentially consolidating claim coverage in a single patent. Reissue carries its own risks, including re-examination of all original claims, but it can be used strategically to simplify a terminal disclaimer chain and reduce ODP exposure points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Using Divisional Applications and the \u00a7 121 Safe Harbor Strategically<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The \u00a7 121 safe harbor remains the cleanest protection against ODP for patents arising from restriction requirements, provided consonance is maintained. A prosecution strategy that deliberately uses restriction requirements to divide a complex pharmaceutical invention, rather than filing independent continuation applications that risk losing the safe harbor, provides structural ODP protection from the beginning of prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Deliberately structuring prosecution to trigger and respond to restriction requirements requires accepting some uncertainty in prosecution timing, because restriction requirements are examiner-initiated and cannot be perfectly timed. But applicants have some tools: filing claims that are written to span multiple distinct inventions increases the probability that an examiner will issue a restriction requirement, initiating the process that creates safe harbor protection for the resulting divisionals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The risk is that if the examiner does not issue a restriction requirement, and the applicant voluntarily divides the application instead, the \u00a7 121 safe harbor does not apply to voluntary elections. Voluntary divisional applications are treated as continuation applications for ODP purposes, with no safe harbor protection. A strategy that relies on restriction requirements to enable safe harbor protection therefore must be backed by a contingency plan if the USPTO does not cooperate by issuing the restriction requirement the applicant hoped for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The PTE vs. PTA Strategic Choice and Its Effect on ODP Risk<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given that PTE survives terminal disclaimers and ODP analysis while PTA does not, pharmaceutical companies with drugs awaiting FDA approval face a genuine strategic choice. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a patent can receive PTE only if it covers the approved product, was in force at approval, and has not previously received PTE. PTE is calculated on the regulatory review period, with a five-year cap on extension.[2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For a drug with a long FDA review period, PTE can exceed PTA in commercial value. But PTE is available to only one patent per approved product; the applicant must select which patent to extend. Selecting the primary compound patent maximizes the protection of the most foundational exclusivity. But it means other patents in the family cannot receive PTE and must rely on PTA for any term beyond 20 years, making them ODP-vulnerable under <em>Cellect<\/em> if they expire after the compound patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The selection decision is irreversible. It requires coordination between the prosecution team managing the patent portfolio and the regulatory affairs team managing the NDA timeline, with input from commercial to quantify the value of each additional month of exclusivity on the specific drug product. This cross-functional analysis happens too infrequently and too late in most pharmaceutical companies. By the time a commercial team is engaged to model LOE timing, the PTE election has already been made, and the ODP exposure from the resulting PTA distribution in the family is fixed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">International Perspectives: How Double Patenting Rules in the EU and Other Jurisdictions Differ<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The double patenting doctrine as applied in the United States has no direct equivalent in European patent law. The European Patent Office examines applications for double patenting only in the narrow sense of prohibiting two identical claims in two granted European patents from the same application. The broader obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, which evaluates whether claims in two separately filed patents are patentably distinct, does not exist in European patent practice in the same form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This divergence helps explain why AbbVie&#8217;s Humira had far fewer secondary patents in Europe than in the United States, and why biosimilar entry occurred earlier in European markets. A patent thicket strategy built on ODP-prone terminal-disclaimer-linked continuation patents is a specifically American phenomenon, enabled by the USPTO&#8217;s continuation practice and limited, in Europe, by the EPO&#8217;s more restrictive approach to amendment and divisional filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why the European Patent Office Produces Fewer ODP-Vulnerable Patent Families<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The EPO does not grant patents through continuation applications in the American sense. The primary vehicle for pursuing additional protection from the same priority date is the divisional application, and the EPO restricts divisional practice: applicants cannot file unlimited generations of divisionals from a single parent, and the EPO&#8217;s examination on unity of invention is more strictly applied than the USPTO&#8217;s restriction practice. These structural limits naturally constrain the kind of continuation-heavy portfolio construction that generates ODP exposure in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The EPO does apply a form of double patenting review, but its purpose is to prevent the same applicant from holding two granted European patents with identical claims in identical form. Obvious variants are not captured. This means a European pharmaceutical patent portfolio covering a drug compound and its formulations can include multiple patents with claims that would trigger ODP rejection in the U.S. without any equivalent European challenge. Pharmaceutical companies operating under the assumption that European prosecution practice validates their U.S. continuation strategy are making an error that can have significant commercial consequences when U.S. generic manufacturers conduct their own patent challenge analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Canada&#8217;s Evolving Double Patenting Doctrine: A Risk for Cross-Border Portfolio Strategy<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Canadian patent law has moved toward a broader double patenting analysis in recent Federal Court decisions. The Canadian Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <em>Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc.<\/em> established a claims-comparison test for double patenting in Canada that shares surface similarity with the U.S. ODP two-step analysis, but Canadian courts have applied it with different standards for what constitutes patentable distinctness. A pharmaceutical company that filed a series of continuation applications in the U.S. and a parallel series of national phase PCT applications in Canada may face double patenting challenges in Canadian litigation that differ in outcome from the parallel U.S. analysis. Strategic patent portfolio coordination across these jurisdictions requires jurisdiction-specific analysis, not a single-country model extrapolated to all markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Japan, Canada, and Australia each have their own double patenting rules that differ from both the U.S. and European models. Japanese patent practice allows broader prosecution history modification but applies a form of double patenting based on identical claims, similar to statutory double patenting in the U.S. Australian patent practice&#8217;s &#8216;obvious variants&#8217; double patenting test has some similarity to U.S. ODP but has been applied differently in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For pharmaceutical companies managing global patent portfolios, this jurisdictional divergence means that an ODP-driven LOE event in the U.S. does not necessarily translate to earlier generic entry in other major markets. But it also means that U.S. patent counsel managing a continuation-heavy American portfolio should not assume that strategies validated in European prosecution apply to U.S. practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Financial Stakes: What Double Patenting Errors Cost in Actual Revenue<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Quantifying Exclusivity Value: What Each Month of PTA-Protected Term Is Worth<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The revenue consequence of an ODP error is measured in exclusivity-days lost multiplied by the drug&#8217;s average daily net revenue. For a drug generating $5 billion per year in U.S. net sales, each day of patent protection is worth approximately $13.7 million. Each month is worth approximately $417 million. Each year is worth approximately $5 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A pharmaceutical company that loses 800 days of PTA on its primary compound patent because a terminal disclaimer filing links it to an earlier-expiring continuation, and does so on a drug with $5 billion in annual U.S. net sales, has forfeited approximately $11 billion in protected revenue. That loss does not appear on an income statement because it represents revenue that will never be earned, not revenue that was earned and then taken back. But it is real in every economic sense, and it flows directly from a prosecution decision that was made without adequate modeling of the expiration-date consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Investor and Deal Valuation Implications of Latent ODP Risk<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In pharmaceutical M&amp;A transactions, intellectual property representations and warranties typically cover freedom to operate and enforceability of the target&#8217;s patents. Double patenting risk, specifically the risk that a terminal disclaimer filed during prosecution will trigger an ODP-based invalidity defense in later litigation, represents a latent liability that may not be fully captured in standard IP due diligence. An acquirer that purchases a drug asset with a $15 billion revenue forecast based on nominal Orange Book expiration dates, but without an ODP audit of the patent family, may be acquiring an asset whose true terminal exclusivity date is materially earlier than the forecast assumes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Post-<em>Cellect<\/em>, the acquisition due diligence standard for any drug asset with a continuation-heavy patent family should include a systematic ODP audit as a required deliverable, not an optional add-on. The cost of that audit, typically a few hundred thousand dollars in outside counsel time, is negligible relative to the risk of acquiring a patent family with a multi-billion-dollar ODP exposure that was not disclosed or identified before closing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Licensing transactions are similarly affected. A royalty rate set on the basis of a 15-year expected exclusivity period is materially mispriced if ODP risk reduces the effective exclusivity period to 11 years. Royalty stacking provisions in co-development agreements should account for the possibility that one party&#8217;s patents will be found invalid for ODP in litigation, triggering a cascade through terminally-disclaimed siblings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Timeline: Key Double Patenting Events in Pharmaceutical Patent Law (1991 to 2026)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>1991: Symbol Technologies v. Opticon<\/strong> Federal Circuit confirms that ODP is a valid affirmative defense in patent infringement litigation, not merely an administrative prosecution doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2003: Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline (Augmentin)<\/strong> Federal Circuit establishes strict consonance requirement for \u00a7 121 safe harbor; invalidates Augmentin patents for ODP where divisional claims strayed beyond the scope of the restriction requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2007: Merck v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal<\/strong> Federal Circuit confirms that PTE survives ODP analysis and terminal disclaimer filing; PTE is calculated after the terminal-disclaimed base expiration, not from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2010: Boehringer Ingelheim v. Barr Laboratories (Mirapex)<\/strong> Federal Circuit confirms that a terminal disclaimer filed after the reference patent&#8217;s expiration is ineffective; Mirapex patent found invalid for ODP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2014: Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma<\/strong> Federal Circuit holds that a later-issued, earlier-expiring patent can serve as an ODP reference to invalidate an earlier-issued, later-expiring patent, even across separate patent families with the same inventors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2018: Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures<\/strong> Federal Circuit reaffirms that PTE survives ODP analysis under the post-<em>Merck<\/em> framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>August 2023: In re Cellect (Federal Circuit)<\/strong> Panel decision holds that ODP analysis applies to the full PTA-extended expiration date; terminal disclaimers cut off PTA, not just base-term overlap. Binding precedent for all patents with PTA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>January 2024: In re Cellect En Banc Petition Denied<\/strong> Federal Circuit denies rehearing; <em>Cellect<\/em> rule is confirmed as final circuit law. USPTO Director Vidal supports the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>May 2024: USPTO Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule<\/strong> USPTO proposes requiring terminal disclaimers to include an agreement that all terminally-linked patents become unenforceable if any claim in any linked patent is found invalid. Over 300 public comments received.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>August 2024: Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories (Federal Circuit)<\/strong> Federal Circuit holds that a first-filed, first-issued parent patent cannot be invalidated for ODP by its own later-filed, later-issued child. Partially limits <em>Cellect<\/em>. Sun Pharmaceutical petitions for rehearing en banc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>December 2024: USPTO Withdraws Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule<\/strong> After strong opposition from industry, former USPTO directors, and patent bar, USPTO withdraws the May 2024 proposed rule without finalizing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2025 to 2026: Legislative Pressure Continues<\/strong> Congressional proposals targeting terminal disclaimer chains in pharmaceutical patent thickets remain under consideration in both chambers, with bipartisan support tied to drug pricing reform efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What This Means for Brand Pharmaceutical IP Teams, Generic Manufacturers, and Investors<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What This Means for Brand Pharmaceutical IP Teams<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ODP doctrine, as shaped by <em>Cellect<\/em> and <em>Allergan<\/em>, requires pharmaceutical IP teams to change how they manage continuation families. The key discipline is expiration-date tracking throughout prosecution, not just at the time of allowance. Every time a continuation is filed, the prosecution team should run an expiration-date matrix comparing the new application to every existing family member. Any scenario where the new application might issue and expire earlier than a family member with PTA should trigger an analysis of whether a terminal disclaimer will be required, what PTA loss that disclaimer will cause, and whether the commercial value of the new application&#8217;s claims justifies the PTA cost to the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Patent families acquired through M&amp;A require immediate ODP auditing using the six-phase framework described above. The discovery phase in subsequent Paragraph IV litigation will expose every prosecution-history risk in the acquired portfolio. It is always better to discover these risks before litigation, when proactive remediation may still be possible, than during litigation, when the adversarial setting amplifies the cost and the reference patents may already have expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What This Means for Generic Manufacturers and Biosimilar Developers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The post-<em>Cellect<\/em> framework creates a structured opportunity for generic manufacturers with sophisticated patent clearance practices. Any Orange Book-listed patent with substantial PTA, linked by terminal disclaimers to family members with earlier expiration dates, deserves ODP analysis before and alongside prior art invalidity searches. The <em>Allergan<\/em> protection applies only to true parent patents, those that were first-filed and first-issued in their family. Continuations, divisionals filed outside of restriction requirements, and patents in separate families with overlapping inventorship are all candidates for <em>Gilead<\/em>-type or <em>Cellect<\/em>-type ODP analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DrugPatentWatch&#8217;s patent family mapping and Orange Book linking tools are particularly useful for identifying the terminal disclaimer chains that define the boundaries of ODP exposure. A generic manufacturer that uses DrugPatentWatch to build a comprehensive terminal disclaimer chain map before filing its Paragraph IV certification strategy has a materially better starting position than one that begins patent clearance analysis from the Orange Book alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What This Means for Investors Forecasting Pharmaceutical LOE Events<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Standard pharmaceutical LOE forecasting treats the latest Orange Book patent expiration date as the baseline and applies probability discounts for Paragraph IV litigation success rates, FDA review timelines, and biosimilar interchangeability determinations. That framework is incomplete for any drug with a continuation-heavy patent portfolio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ODP risk is a quantifiable discount to the nominal exclusivity term. The discount is largest for drugs where the primary compound patent carries substantial PTA, where continuation patents cover obvious variants without adequate patentable distinction, and where the patent family has accumulated multiple terminal disclaimer linkages across its history. Investors and analysts who model these risks separately, using patent prosecution history data available through DrugPatentWatch and the USPTO, can develop LOE timing forecasts with narrower confidence intervals than models that rely on Orange Book data alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine that can invalidate a brand pharmaceutical patent using the brand&#8217;s own continuation or divisional patents as the weapon. It is not a risk associated with poor innovation; it is a risk associated with continuation-heavy prosecution strategies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>In re Cellect<\/em> (August 2023) established that ODP analysis applies to the full PTA-extended expiration date. Terminal disclaimers filed to cure ODP cut off PTA, not just base-term overlap. PTE, by contrast, survives terminal disclaimers. The asymmetry between PTA and PTE is a permanent feature of post-<em>Cellect<\/em> patent law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories<\/em> (August 2024) protects first-filed, first-issued parent patents from ODP attacks by their own later-filed, later-issued children. The protection does not extend to other patent families, to reverse filing sequences, or to divisionals outside the \u00a7 121 safe harbor.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma<\/em> (2014) established that a later-issued, earlier-expiring patent can invalidate an earlier-issued, later-expiring patent even across separate patent families with overlapping inventorship. This cross-family ODP risk is widely underestimated in pharmaceutical IP audits.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A terminal disclaimer filed after the reference patent has expired is legally ineffective. Once the reference patent expires, the ODP problem becomes permanent. Regular portfolio audits are the only way to identify and cure this risk before it becomes irreversible.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AbbVie&#8217;s Humira portfolio contains an estimated 80% non-patentably distinct patents linked by terminal disclaimers. That linkage structure, while commercially successful in delaying biosimilar entry through litigation attrition, also created cascading invalidity risk that shaped the settlement terms AbbVie ultimately accepted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The USPTO&#8217;s proposed 2024 terminal disclaimer rule, which would have caused patent chains to fall together upon invalidation of any linked claim, was withdrawn in December 2024. Congressional pressure targeting pharmaceutical patent thickets remains active and may produce legislative action that achieves the same outcome through statute.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For pharmaceutical M&amp;A, licensing, and investment transactions, ODP risk requires case-specific audit beyond standard IP representations and warranties. The six-phase ODP audit framework, covering family mapping, terminal disclaimer inventory, expiration sequence analysis, PTA sensitivity, \u00a7 121 review, and remediation prioritization, is the appropriate due diligence standard for any asset with a continuation-heavy patent family.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DrugPatentWatch&#8217;s patent family and terminal disclaimer mapping data enables both brand IP teams conducting proactive audits and generic manufacturers building Paragraph IV certification strategies to identify ODP exposure that is not visible from Orange Book data alone.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The commercial stakes from unresolved ODP exposure, measured in exclusivity-days lost multiplied by daily net revenue, can reach billions of dollars on blockbuster drugs. This risk warrants treatment as a first-order financial risk, not as an administrative patent prosecution detail.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">1. What is the difference between statutory double patenting and obviousness-type double patenting in pharmaceutical patent law?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Statutory double patenting, under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101, bars two patents with literally identical claims from the same applicant. It cannot be cured by a terminal disclaimer and is relatively uncommon in sophisticated pharmaceutical prosecution because it requires exact claim duplication. Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a court-created doctrine that applies when two patents cover inventions that are obvious variants of each other, even if not identical. ODP can be cured by a terminal disclaimer that synchronizes expiration dates, though that cure eliminates any Patent Term Adjustment on the later-expiring patent under <em>In re Cellect<\/em>. ODP is the more commercially significant doctrine because it applies to the continuation-heavy patent families that pharmaceutical companies build around approved drugs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">2. Can a continuation patent invalidate its own parent patent for double patenting?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before <em>Allergan USA v. MSN Laboratories<\/em> (August 2024), a continuation that issued and expired before the parent could serve as an ODP reference against the parent under <em>In re Cellect<\/em>. After <em>Allergan<\/em>, a first-filed, first-issued parent patent cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued continuation even if the continuation expires first. The protection is directional: it protects parents from children, not children from parents, and not patents in separate families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">3. When is a terminal disclaimer ineffective to cure an ODP rejection?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A terminal disclaimer becomes permanently ineffective if the reference patent has already expired by the time the disclaimer is filed. <em>Boehringer Ingelheim v. Barr Laboratories<\/em> confirmed this rule: the disclaimer cannot be filed retroactively after the reference patent&#8217;s expiration, and no amount of patent term extension or other remedy can restore the invalidated patent&#8217;s term once the window closes. This is why proactive portfolio auditing before any patent in the family expires is essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">4. Does filing a terminal disclaimer to cure ODP mean the applicant admits the claims are obvious?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No. Federal Circuit precedent, including <em>Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical<\/em> and <em>Ortho Pharmaceutical v. Smith<\/em>, establishes that filing a terminal disclaimer does not constitute an admission of obviousness. The disclaimer functions as a procedural resolution of the rejection without affecting the legal presumption of validity of the resulting patent&#8217;s claims. However, the existence of a terminal disclaimer in the prosecution history is a relevant data point that generic manufacturers routinely use to identify potential ODP exposure when building an invalidity case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">5. How does the \u00a7 121 safe harbor protect pharmaceutical divisional patents from ODP?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 121 of the Patent Act protects divisional patents from ODP challenges over each other when they arose from USPTO-initiated restriction requirements and when the claims in each divisional maintain consonance with the distinct invention identified in the restriction requirement. The key limitation is the consonance requirement: if a divisional&#8217;s claims are amended during prosecution to cover subject matter outside the scope of the restricted invention, the safe harbor dissolves and ODP applies. Maintaining consonance across a long prosecution history, potentially spanning a decade and multiple prosecution counsel, requires explicit claim-scope tracking that many prosecution teams do not implement systematically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">6. What happened to the USPTO&#8217;s proposed 2024 terminal disclaimer rule, and what are the implications of its withdrawal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The USPTO proposed in May 2024 that terminal disclaimers include an agreement to make all linked patents unenforceable if any claim in any linked patent is found invalid for anticipation or obviousness. After receiving more than 300 public comments and facing opposition from a broad coalition including five former USPTO directors, the USPTO withdrew the rule in December 2024. The withdrawal preserves the current framework under which terminal disclaimer chains do not cascade invalidity. However, Congressional proposals that would achieve the same result through legislation remain under consideration, and the underlying policy concern, that pharmaceutical patent thickets built through terminal disclaimer chains impose disproportionate competition costs, continues to drive regulatory and legislative attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">7. How does the Gilead v. Natco rule create double patenting risk across separate patent families?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma<\/em> (2014) held that ODP can operate between patents that are not in the same patent family, provided they share the same inventors and cover obvious variants of each other. If a pharmaceutical company&#8217;s research program produces two closely related compounds that are patented in separate applications, and those applications do not share a common priority date, the later-expiring patent remains vulnerable to ODP attack from the earlier-expiring patent. This cross-family risk requires monitoring not just within a drug&#8217;s primary patent family but across any patent families covering related chemical entities from the same research program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">8. How does double patenting exposure affect pharmaceutical M&amp;A transaction valuations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ODP exposure reduces the effective exclusivity period of an acquired drug&#8217;s patent portfolio below what nominal Orange Book expiration dates suggest. For a drug generating $5 billion annually, each year of exclusivity is worth approximately $5 billion in gross margin. A patent family with unresolved ODP exposure that shortens effective exclusivity by two to three years represents a valuation discount of $10 billion or more on that asset. Standard IP due diligence representations and warranties may not capture this risk if the ODP exposure is latent (not yet raised in litigation and not visible from an Orange Book review). Comprehensive ODP auditing of the target&#8217;s patent prosecution histories is the appropriate due diligence standard for any acquisition of a marketed pharmaceutical product with a continuation-heavy patent family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">9. What is the relationship between Paragraph IV certifications and double patenting challenges in Hatch-Waxman litigation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Paragraph IV certification is a generic manufacturer&#8217;s assertion that one or more Orange Book-listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed. ODP is one of the most commonly raised invalidity defenses in Paragraph IV litigation because it does not require finding external prior art; it uses the brand&#8217;s own prosecution history. A successful ODP challenge against the primary compound patent can eliminate the brand&#8217;s foundational exclusivity immediately, without waiting for the terminal patent in the family to expire, and can cascade through terminal disclaimer chains to undermine multiple other Orange Book-listed patents simultaneously. Generic manufacturers with access to comprehensive patent prosecution history data, as available through DrugPatentWatch, use ODP analysis as a core component of Paragraph IV filing strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">10. How should pharmaceutical companies structure new continuation filings to minimize double patenting risk after In re Cellect and Allergan v. MSN?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">New continuations should be filed with an expiration-date matrix analysis comparing the proposed application&#8217;s likely expiration date to every existing family member, particularly any family member with PTA. If a continuation is likely to issue and expire before a PTA-heavy parent, and if the continuation&#8217;s claims cover subject matter that is arguably obvious in view of the parent&#8217;s claims, the prosecution team should either (a) file the continuation as a divisional arising from a restriction requirement to preserve \u00a7 121 safe harbor protection, (b) draft the continuation&#8217;s claims to be patentably distinct from the parent&#8217;s claims on a two-way analysis, or (c) accept that a terminal disclaimer may be required and quantify the PTA loss in advance to ensure the commercial value of the continuation&#8217;s claims justifies the cost to the parent&#8217;s exclusivity term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>I-MAK. (2025, February). <em>Investigating the pharmaceutical industry&#8217;s drug patenting practices<\/em>. https:\/\/www.i-mak.org\/2025\/02\/21\/investigating-the-pharmaceutical-industrys-drug-patenting-practices\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Norton Rose Fulbright. (2023). <em>Obviousness-type double patenting, terminal disclaimers and best IP practices<\/em>. https:\/\/www.nortonrosefulbright.com\/en\/knowledge\/publications\/376a1470\/obviousness-type-double-patenting-terminal-disclaimers-and-best-ip-practices<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.<\/em>, 753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Duane Morris LLP. (2023, December). <em>Defending against obviousness-type double patenting using safe harbor provision remains a viable strategy<\/em>. https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/defending_against_obviousness_type_double_patenting_using_safe_harbor_provisions_remains_1223.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sterne Kessler. (2025, October). <em>Obviousness-type double patenting<\/em>. https:\/\/www.sternekessler.com\/news-insights\/insights\/obviousness-type-double-patenting-2025\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Smith<\/em>, 959 F.2d 936, 941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.<\/em>, 592 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>In re Cellect, LLC<\/em>, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>WilmerHale. (2023, August). <em>Patent term adjustments in jeopardy after In re Cellect<\/em>. https:\/\/www.wilmerhale.com\/insights\/client-alerts\/20230829-patent-term-adjustments-in-jeopardy-after-in-re-cellect<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Patently-O. (2023, August). <em>Double patenting and patent term adjustment<\/em>. https:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2023\/08\/double-patenting-adjustment.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bloomberg Law. (2024, May). <em>Supreme Court must reverse ruling thwarting patent term guarantees<\/em>. https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/us-law-week\/supreme-court-must-reverse-ruling-thwarting-patent-term-guarantees<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Merck &amp; Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.<\/em>, 482 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC<\/em>, 909 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC<\/em>, 349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.<\/em>, 111 F.4th 1358, No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Gibson Dunn. (2024, August). <em>Federal Circuit decision in Allergan v. MSN<\/em>. https:\/\/www.gibsondunn.com\/federal-circuit-decision-in-allergan-v-msn\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>IP Law Blog. (2025, January). <em>Federal Circuit emphasizes role of filing dates, reversing obviousness-type double patenting invalidation<\/em>. https:\/\/www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com\/archives\/federal-circuit-emphasizes-role-of-filing-dates-reversing-obviousness-type-double-patenting-invalidation\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>White &amp; Case LLP. (2024, August). <em>Federal Circuit limits the application of obviousness-type double patenting for patents in the same family<\/em>. https:\/\/www.whitecase.com\/insight-alert\/federal-circuit-limits-application-obviousness-type-double-patenting-patents-same<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Knobbe Martens. (2024, November). <em>Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: Federal Circuit places limits on obviousness-type double patenting<\/em>. https:\/\/www.knobbe.com\/blog\/allergan-v-msn-laboratories-federal-circuit-places-limits-obviousness-type-double-patenting\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DrugPatentWatch. (2025, November). <em>The double-edged scalpel: A strategic guide to CIP applications in pharmaceutical drug development<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-double-edged-scalpel-a-strategic-guide-to-continuation-in-part-cip-applications-in-pharmaceutical-drug-development\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>TechTarget. (2025). <em>Understanding pharmaceutical patent thickets, exclusivity<\/em>. https:\/\/www.techtarget.com\/pharmalifesciences\/feature\/Understanding-pharmaceutical-patent-thickets-exclusivity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rosenblatt, R., et al. (2022). Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem. <em>PLOS Medicine<\/em>. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/36072417\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Arnold &amp; Porter. (2024, May). <em>USPTO issues proposed rule on a new terminal disclaimer requirement<\/em>. https:\/\/www.arnoldporter.com\/en\/perspectives\/advisories\/2024\/05\/uspto-issues-proposed-rule-on-terminal-disclaimer<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Foley &amp; Lardner. (2024, December). <em>USPTO drops proposed rules on terminal disclaimers<\/em>. https:\/\/www.foley.com\/insights\/publications\/2024\/12\/uspto-drops-proposed-rules-terminal-disclaimers\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Feldman, R., et al. (2024). Extent of drug patents with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting rejections. <em>JAMA<\/em>. https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC11320327\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DrugPatentWatch. (2026, March). <em>The patent cliff playbook: Pharmaceutical IP valuation, generic entry timing, and biosimilar strategy<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/patent-expirations-seizing-opportunities-in-the-generic-drug-market\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Federal Trade Commission. (2024, July). <em>FTC submits comment supporting proposed USPTO terminal disclaimer rule<\/em>. https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/news-events\/news\/press-releases\/2024\/07\/ftc-submits-comment-supporting-proposed-uspto-terminal-disclaimer-rule<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nixon Peabody. (2024, December). <em>USPTO changes course on controversial proposed rule for terminal disclaimers<\/em>. https:\/\/www.nixonpeabody.com\/insights\/alerts\/2024\/12\/16\/uspto-changes-proposed-rule-for-terminal-disclaimers<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Federal Register. (2024, December 4). <em>Terminal disclaimer practice to obviate nonstatutory double patenting; withdrawal<\/em>. 89 FR (2024-28263). https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2024\/12\/04\/2024-28263\/terminal-disclaimer-practice-to-obviate-nonstatutory-double-patenting-withdrawal<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Alcimed. (2025). <em>Patent cliff: What strategies can help biopharma stay competitive?<\/em> https:\/\/www.alcimed.com\/en\/insights\/patent-cliff\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Association for Accessible Medicines. (2025). <em>Patent settlements are necessary to help combat patent thickets<\/em>. https:\/\/accessiblemeds.org\/resources\/blog\/patent-settlements-are-necessary-to-help-combat-patent-thickets\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DrugPatentWatch. (2026, March). <em>Drug patent expiration: The complete strategic guide to loss of exclusivity, lifecycle management, and the $400 billion cliff<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-impact-of-drug-patent-expiration-financial-implications-lifecycle-strategies-and-market-transformations\/<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Quick Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a judicially created doctrine that prevents patent holders from stretching exclusivity by obtaining [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39046,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39042","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39042"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39042\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39304,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39042\/revisions\/39304"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39046"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}