“Whether the district court erred in rejecting Appellant’s obviousness-type double patenting invalidity defense against the ‘788 patent by holding that the earlier-expiring ‘219 patent does not qualify as a double patenting reference against the later-expiring, commonly owned ‘788 patent, where the ‘788 patent expires later on account of having received a patent term adjustment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §154(b).”
The parties jointly move to remand this case to the district court for modification of the final judgment orders dated March 23, 2021 and April 5, 2021, consistent with the district court’s indicated ruling of September 1, 2021.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS SO ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the district court for modification of the final judgement orders consistent with the district court’s indicative ruling and this order.
(2) The parties shall bear their own costs.