Obviousness-type double patenting (“OTDP”)—the doctrine that patent practitioners love to hate—is back in the spotlight, and this time it's brought friends, enemies, and an audience of confused onlookers.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (“PTAB”) decision in Ex parte Baurin has kicked off what may be the next seismic shift in OTDP law, and the USPTO Director has convened the rarely used Appeals Review Panel (“ARP”) to sort out the mess.

This article surveys the current state of IP protection for these technologies, examines recent developments in patent eligibility that directly affect the biotech-materials space, and offers practical guidance for innovators seeking to build durable patent portfolios around the materials of tomorrow.

On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued supplemental guidance that should make it easier to seek design patent protection for computer-generated interfaces, icons, and other digital visual designs. At first glance, the guidance appears to make only a narrow procedural change: the Office removed the prior examination requirement that applicants depict at least a portion of the computer, display, or screen in solid or broken lines when claiming a graphical user interface (GUI) or icon. In practice, that requirement often amounted to little more than a dashed-line box around the claimed design. Applicants may now simply depict the icon or interface itself.

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Delaware district court’s summary judgment of ineligibility, holding that REGENXBIO's gene therapy patent claims are not directed to a natural phenomenon. In doing so, Judge Stoll—joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes—provided a masterclass in how to properly apply the “markedly different characteristics” test from Diamond v. Chakrabarty to modern biotechnology. And the biopharma world is collectively exhaling.

On February 8, 2025, I was watching Super Bowl LIX. On came a commercial by Him & Hers offering to deliver weight loss medications to your door. And they looked a lot like Ozempic® and Wegovy®. Being a pharma patent geek watching with another pharma patent geek, we stopped talking about using MALDI-TOF in infringement analyses and started asking a question that Novo Nordisk single-handedly made vogue last week. Why don’t compounders run afoul of patent law all the time? Or do they?

Abu Dhabi Investment Council has filed a complaint against Energy & Minerals Group over a GP-led sale of a 30% stake in Ascent Resources, arguing it would harm limited partners and disproportionately benefit EMG insiders while allowing the fund manager to unjustly reset profit-sharing terms.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions have shifted the standards for induced infringement, now considering not just a generic drug's label, but also its marketing practices. This has led to a Supreme Court inquiry on whether a fully carved-out generic label can still encourage infringement.