In Re Paolo Longi

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a patent application was properly rejected for obviousness-type double patenting where the prior art references indicated a reasonable expectation of success
• explaining that, even though no explicit statutory basis exists for obviousness-type double patenting, the doctrine is necessary to prevent a patent term extension through claims in a second patent that are not patentably distinct from those in the first patent
• affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents
• explaining that, even though no explicit statutory basis exists for obviousness-type double patenting, the doctrine is necessary to prevent a patent term extension through claims in a second patent that are not patentably distinct from those in the first patent
• affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents
• affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).