Adhami v. USPTO: Federal Circuit Affirms HIV-Cure Patent Application Unpatentable
Eftim Josif Adhami appealed a USPTO rejection of US application 15/480105, directed to an HIV-cure technology. The Federal Circuit affirmed the agency’s unpatentability finding under Rule 36 — a summary disposition — closing a 590-day appellate proceeding without a written opinion.
Federal Circuit summarily affirms USPTO’s rejection of HIV-cure patent application
Eftim Josif Adhami, represented by Martin S. High PC, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 4 December 2023, challenging the USPTO’s determination that his patent application — US15/480105, published as US20170281676A1 and directed to an HIV-cure technology — was unpatentable. The respondent was the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO, Derrick Brent, represented by Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed.
On 16 July 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a one-line affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the court’s procedure for summary disposition without a written opinion. The ruling — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ — confirms that the panel found no reversible error in the USPTO’s unpatentability determination, leaving the rejection of US15/480105 fully intact and the application without patent protection.
The 590-day duration from filing to disposition is consistent with standard Federal Circuit appellate timelines. A Rule 36 affirmance, while binding, does not create citable precedent, which means the specific legal or technical grounds underlying the USPTO’s rejection remain shielded from public scrutiny. What drove the unpatentability finding — whether obviousness, lack of enablement, written description deficiency, or another ground — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Unpatentable in 590 days
590-day appellate proceeding — Federal Circuit average for Rule 36 affirmances typically under 18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error, no written opinion
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is a summary judgment tool the court uses when the panel unanimously agrees that the decision below contains no reversible error warranting written analysis. It is a full affirmance on the merits — not a procedural dismissal — but it produces no citable precedent. The USPTO’s unpatentability findings on US15/480105 are confirmed without elaboration.
No written opinion issuedApplication remains unpatentable — no enforceable rights arise
For Adhami, the affirmance extinguishes the immediate appellate path for US15/480105. The application cannot issue as a patent while the rejection stands affirmed. Absent a successful en banc petition or certiorari to the Supreme Court — both low-probability routes — the HIV-cure invention as claimed will not receive patent protection under the current prosecution record.
Patent protection deniedUSPTO’s rejection stands; agency authority reinforced
The USPTO’s unpatentability determination survives Federal Circuit review intact. For the agency, the Rule 36 affirmance signals that its examination and appeal process on this application was procedurally and substantively sound. Because no written opinion was issued, the decision does not set precedent, but it does constitute a final appellate adjudication unfavourable to the applicant.
USPTO determination upheldHIV-cure space: this claim set will not create a blocking patent
Companies and researchers operating in the HIV therapeutic space — particularly those developing cure-directed approaches — face no patent enforcement risk from US15/480105 following this affirmance. However, the Rule 36 disposition provides no claim-construction guidance, meaning competitors and R&D teams cannot draw conclusions about claim scope or patentability standards from this ruling. Independent FTO analysis remains advisable.
No blocking patent issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: EFTIM JOSIF ADHAMI | Individual | Pro-se-style appellant and inventor — holder of US application 15/480105 (HIV-cure technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DERRICK BRENT, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | Acting Director of the USPTO; respondent defending agency’s unpatentability determination on appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Martin S. High | Attorney | Counsel for In re: EFTIM JOSIF ADHAMISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Martin S. High PC | Law Firm | Representing In re: EFTIM JOSIF ADHAMISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | Attorney | Counsel for DERRICK BRENT, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The terse verdict — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ — is the Federal Circuit’s most concise form of merits disposition. Rule 36 affirmances are issued when the panel unanimously finds the tribunal below committed no reversible error, rendering extended written analysis unnecessary. Critically, this is not a procedural dismissal: the USPTO’s unpatentability determination is conclusively upheld. Because no opinion accompanies the ruling, neither the legal grounds nor the claim-by-claim analysis enter the public record, limiting its value as precedent while fully terminating Adhami’s appellate rights at this level.
US15/480105 (US20170281676A1) — HIV-Cure Therapeutic Technology
US application 15/480105, published as US20170281676A1, is directed to technology characterised in this litigation as an ‘HIV-CURE’ — broadly suggesting a therapeutic method, composition, or protocol aimed at curing or eliminating HIV infection. The application was filed in the standard USPTO utility application track. The USPTO’s examination concluded the claims were unpatentable — a determination subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit — though the specific statutory basis (e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112) is not disclosed in the public appellate record.
The strategic significance of a patent claiming HIV-cure functionality would be considerable if granted, given the high commercial and therapeutic value of the HIV treatment market. The failure to obtain patent protection — affirmed at the Federal Circuit level — means no exclusivity arises from this application. For pharmaceutical, biotech, and research organisations active in HIV therapeutics, the application’s rejection removes one potential blocking position, though the absence of a written opinion means claim-scope boundaries from this specific prosecution are not publicly delineated.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US15/480105 and related HIV-cure filings?
For biotech and pharmaceutical teams developing HIV-cure or HIV-suppression therapeutics, US15/480105 has been confirmed unpatentable by the Federal Circuit and presents no current enforcement risk. However, Adhami or related applicants may have filed continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications that carry forward related claims in modified form. Any R&D programme operating in HIV curative therapy should assess whether such related applications exist and whether their claims could intersect with planned product architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables teams to map the full application family around US15/480105, identify any pending continuations, and benchmark claim language against the current state of the HIV patent landscape. By combining prosecution history analytics with forward-citation tracking, Eureka helps legal and R&D teams confirm whether the rejection of this application truly clears the path — or whether related filings warrant continued monitoring.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20170281676A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving HIV and antiviral patent patentability
Explore Federal Circuit appeals from USPTO patentability rejections in the HIV therapeutic and antiviral technology space — cases with comparable procedural posture and subject matter.
What this case signals for the HIV therapeutic patent landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance at the Federal Circuit carries finality without guidance — understanding what that means for prosecution strategy is critical.
Rule 36 affirmances block the patent but reveal nothing about claim strategy
When the Federal Circuit affirms under Rule 36, the rejection is final but the reasoning is invisible. For competitors in HIV therapeutics, this means the claim set in US15/480105 is neutralised — but the line between patentable and unpatentable in this technology space remains unclear from this case alone. Broader prosecution landscape analysis is essential.
HIV-cure patent applications face high scrutiny at the USPTO
Applications claiming broad therapeutic outcomes — particularly ‘cure’ designations — frequently encounter enablement and written description rejections. The Basis of Termination listed as ‘Unpatentable’ suggests the rejection was substantive, not merely procedural. Applicants in adjacent HIV and antiviral spaces should audit their claim language and specification support proactively.
ADHAMI v DERRICK — key questions answered
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit panel unanimously found no reversible error in the USPTO’s unpatentability determination for US15/480105. It is a final merits ruling — not a procedural dismissal — but it produces no written opinion and no citable precedent. The patent application remains unpatentable.
The patent at issue is US application 15/480105, published as US20170281676A1, filed by Eftim Josif Adhami and directed to an HIV-cure technology. The USPTO found the claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that determination on 16 July 2025.
Federal Circuit Rule 36 allows the court to affirm a lower tribunal’s decision without a written opinion when all judges on the panel agree there is no reversible error. It is used for cases the court considers legally straightforward or where the reasoning below is adequate. The specific grounds for the USPTO’s rejection are not disclosed in the public record as a result.
Following a Rule 36 affirmance, the applicant may petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit, or petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Both are discretionary and statistically unlikely to succeed. Absent such filings, the Federal Circuit’s affirmance is the final word on the patentability of US15/480105 as currently claimed.
The affirmance confirms US15/480105 will not issue as an enforceable patent, removing it as a blocking position for HIV therapeutic developers. However, related continuation or divisional applications may exist and could carry forward modified claims. Teams active in HIV-cure technology should conduct a full family search and monitor for continuation filings by the same applicant before concluding the path is fully clear.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.