Potential Combined USPTO and FDA Regulatory Pitfalls

  • Gerald B. Halt
  • John C. Donch
  • Amber R. Stiles
  • Lisa Jenkins VanLuvanee
  • Brandon R. Theiss
  • Dana L. Blue


Disclosure is an important part of both the USPTO patent application process and the FDA regulatory review process. The specific disclosures that are required by the USPTO and the FDA can sometimes be potentially problematic for those who are involved in both the patent application process and the regulatory review processes. Generally speaking, disclosures that are made to the USPTO need to also be made to the FDA, and vice versa. Failing to make a disclosure when disclosure is required can lead to a finding of inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent, which can result in the patent being invalidated, and/or can prompt the FDA to initiate an investigation as to whether significant questions regarding data integrity and reliability with respect to a regulated product have been raised for a medical device product that is under review. Being aware of disclosure requirements, and the consequences for failing to comply with those requirements, can help avoid serious pitfalls during the patent prosecution and regulatory processes.


  1. 1.
    Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United States Water Servs. v. Novozymes A/S, 843 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc. v. Acorn Mobility Servs., 394 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co., 439 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FDA Application Integrity Policy, Section 1-1-3(1), available online at (accessed Aug. 21, 2018).
  7. 7.
    FDA Compliance Policy Guidance Manual, Section 120.100, available online at (accessed Aug. 21, 2018).
  8. 8.
    21 U.S.C. § 360c(i)(1)(A).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    21 C.F.R. § 807.100.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    35 U.S.C. §102(a).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    35 U.S.C. §103.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 599 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., No. 5:2008cv00543, Doc. No. 358, (N.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2012).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Am. Med. Sys. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, 712 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D. Minn. 2010).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Ariz. 2008).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald B. Halt
    • 1
  • John C. Donch
    • 2
  • Amber R. Stiles
    • 3
  • Lisa Jenkins VanLuvanee
    • 4
  • Brandon R. Theiss
    • 5
  • Dana L. Blue
    • 4
  1. 1.United PlazaVolpe and Koenig, P.C. United PlazaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Volpe and Koenig, P.C.PhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Miramar BeachUSA
  4. 4.Facet Life Sciences, Inc.WayneUSA
  5. 5.Volpe and Koenig, PCPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations