Dicerna Pharmaceuticals’ USPTO Patent Appeal Dismissed: Federal Circuit Closes Landmark RNAi Case

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Derrick Brent (Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO)
Case Number 24-1064 (Fed. Cir.)
Court Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Duration Oct 2023 – Mar 2025 526 days
Outcome Plaintiff Appeal Dismissed – Voluntary
Patents at Issue
Technology Ligand-Modified Double-Stranded Nucleic Acids (RNAi)

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

Clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company specializing in RNAi-based therapeutics, acquired by Novo Nordisk in 2021. Focus on ligand-conjugated double-stranded RNA technology.

🛡️ Defendant

Named in his official capacity as Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO, representing the government agency in the appeal.

The Patent Application at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent Application No. 15/621,395 (published as US20170305956A1), covering **ligand-modified double-stranded nucleic acids** — a foundational technology class in modern gene-silencing therapeutics. The application covered:

  • US20170305956A1 — Ligand-modified double-stranded nucleic acids for targeted gene silencing.
🔍

Developing similar RNAi therapeutics?

Check if your technology might be impacted by this or related patent applications.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Federal Circuit **granted Dicerna’s motion to dismiss** the appeal pursuant to **Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)**, with each side bearing its own costs. The dismissal resolves the appellate proceeding without prejudice, indicating a strategic withdrawal rather than a ruling on the merits.

Verdict Cause Analysis & Legal Significance

The appeal stemmed from a USPTO administrative determination where the claims of US15/621,395 were found unpatentable. This procedural outcome, while not a precedential ruling, highlights the challenges patent applicants face with strict written description and enablement standards, especially for broad biotechnology claims post-*Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi* (2023).

✍️

Drafting RNAi patent claims?

Learn from these rejections. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand USPTO scrutiny.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis

This case highlights critical IP risks in RNAi therapeutics. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Implications

Analyze the strategic and procedural implications of this voluntary dismissal for RNAi patenting.

  • View related applications and prosecution strategies
  • See impact of post-Amgen enablement standards
  • Understand reasons for appellate withdrawal
📊 View Prosecution Status
⚠️
High Risk Area

Functional claiming in RNAi therapeutics

📋
1 Patent Application

At issue: US20170305956A1

Strategic Dismissal

Signals prosecution alternatives

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals under Rule 42(b) are strategic tools when parallel prosecution options exist.

Search related case law →

Post-*Amgen* enablement doctrine continues to reshape patentability risk for broad nucleic acid claims.

Explore precedents →

For R&D Leaders & Innovators

Freedom-to-operate analyses in the ligand-modified nucleic acid space must account for active prosecution landscapes.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

Engage IP counsel early when developing novel RNAi delivery systems, especially ligand-modified nucleic acids.

Try AI patent drafting →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.