Source: http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/patent-term-adjustment/
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 12:23:42
Document Index: 535484457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154']

Category Archives: Patent Term Adjustment	USPTO Implements Significant Patent Term Adjustment Changes Pursuant To The AIA Technical Corrections Act
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 01 April 2013
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment On April 1, 2013, the USPTO published an “interim final rule” relating to Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), to implement changes to the PTA statute embodied in the AIA Technical Corrections Act. Although the rule changes have an immediate effective date, the USPTO will consider written comments submitted within 60 days, e.g., by May 31, 2013.Continue reading this entry
Tags: HR 6621, Technical Corrections 2 Comments
Email	MicuRx Sues USPTO For Patent Term Adjustment Under Exelixis
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 15 November 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment MicuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appears to be one of the first patent holders to sue the USPTO for additional Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) based on the recent district court decision in Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, No. 1:12cv96 (E. D. Va. Nov. 1, 2012). The patent at issue (U.S. Patent 8,178,683, directed to oxazolidinone antibiotic agents) was filed August 6, 2008, and granted May 15, 2012. The USPTO awarded some PTA for its failure to grant the patent within three years of the filing date, but did not award any PTA for the days after March 5, 2012—the date on which a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) was filed. Thus, MicuRx seeks an additional 71 days of PTA—the number of days from March 5 to May 15. The complaint was filed within the 180 day window for bringing a civil action under 35 USC § 154(b)(4)(A).
Tags: B Delay, Exelixis, MicuRx Comment
Email	Will Challenges To The USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment RCE Carve-Out Gain Traction?
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 29 October 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment In a complaint filed October 19, 2012, Biogen Idec MA Inc. joined patent holders such as Exelixis, Inc. and Human Genome Sciences, Inc., who are challenging the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(i)). As I wrote previously, I think these challenges may have merit, and patent holders facing similar PTA calculations may want to consider pursuing similar civil actions against the USPTO.Continue reading this entry
Tags: B Delay, Biogen Idec, Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Comment
Email	A Different Challenge To The Post-Notice Of Appeal Patent Term Adjustment Problem
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 27 July 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment Deca-Medics, Inc. has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) award based on how its patent application was processed after a Notice of Appeal was filed. While I have written about the problem with the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) and the USPTO is considering changing the rule that interprets that portion of the PTA statute, Deca-Medics takes a different approach in its complaint.Continue reading this entry
Tags: Appeal, B Delay, Board, C Delay, Deca-Medics, Delay Comment
Email	Challenging The USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment Calculations For RCEs
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 05 June 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment Recently several cases have been filed that challenge the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculations in patents where an RCE has been filed. For example, both Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos (Civ. Action No. 1:12-cv-00574-LMB-TCB) (E.D. Va. May 25, 2012) and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Kappos (Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00607-GBL-TCB) (E.D. Va. June 1, 2012) raise the same issue regarding the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(i)). I think these challenges may have merit, and patent holders facing similar PTA calculations may want to consider pursuing similar civil actions against the USPTO.Continue reading this entry
Tags: B Delay, Exelixis, Human Genome Sciences, Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Comment
Email	USPTO Requests Reconsideration In Patent Term Adjustment Tolling Case
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 03 April 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment The USPTO has filed a motion requesting reconsideration in Bristol Meyers Squibb Co. v. Kappos, where the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the statutory deadline for bringing a civil action to challenge the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded by the USPTO is tolled when the patentee pursues reconsideration of the agency decision. As I wrote previously, the court’s original ruling was significant, because the 180-day statutory period often runs before the USPTO has issued its final decision. If the deadline is not tolled, a patentee must decide whether to bring a civil action to contest a PTA award even before the USPTO has made it’s final PTA calculation. Continue reading this entry
Tags: BMS, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Equitable Tolling, Tolling Comment
Email	District Court Finds That Deadline To File PTA Action Was Tolled By Request For Reconsideration
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 06 February 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment In a decision issued January 27, 2012, in Bristol Meyers Squibb Co. v. Kappos, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the statutory deadline for bringing a civil action to challenge the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded by the USPTO is tolled when the patentee pursues reconsideration of the agency decision. This ruling is significant, because the 180-day statutory period often occurs before the USPTO issues its final decision on a request for reconsideration. Continue reading this entry
Tags: BMS, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Equitable Tolling Comment
Email	USPTO Proposes To Close Post-Notice Of Appeal Gap In Patent Term Adjustment Rules
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 06 January 2012
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment; USPTO Proposed Rule Changes In a Federal Register Notice issued December 28, 2011, the USPTO announced that it is considering changes to the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) rules relating to “appellate review by the Board.” I have written previously about the post-Notice of Appeal gap left by the current PTA rules, and believe that these new proposed changes would go far to close that gap, although they will not benefit all applications on appeal. The USPTO will accept written comments on these proposed rule changes through January 27, 2012. Continue reading this entry
Tags: Appeal, Board of Appeals and Interferences, Delay, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) Comment
Email	USPTO Tweaks Patent Term Adjustment Rules To Accomodate McKesson-Type IDS Submissions
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 02 December 2011
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment; USPTO Proposed Rule Changes In a Federal Register Notice issued December 1, 2011, the USPTO issued a final rule that tweaks the patent term adjustment rules to permit applicants to promptly file McKesson-type Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) without incurring a patent term adjustment deduction. The rule change took effect on December 1, 2011.
(The Federal Register Notice indicates that previously proposed changes to the calculation of patent term adjustment when the USPTO reopens prosecution after a Notice of Appeal are being revised and will be published for comment separately.) Continue reading this entry
Tags: 156, Delay, Duty of Disclosure, Final Rules, Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), McKesson, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) Comment
Email	Proposed Changes to Patent Term Adjustment Rules–Looking a Gift Horse In The Mouth
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 15 April 2011
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment; USPTO Proposed Rule Changes On April 6, 2011, the USPTO announced proposed changes to the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) rules that would award PTA for USPTO delay when an examiner reopens prosecution after a notice of appeal has been filed. While I have written previously about the gap left by the USPTO’s current PTA rules, I am afraid that the new proposal raises more problems than it solves.
Tags: Appeal, Delay, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) Comment
Email	Patent Term Adjustment – When Is An Action An Action?
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 12 April 2011
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment Yet another complaint has been filed against the USPTO challenging Patent Term Adjustment. The issue raised in Oncolytics Biotech Inc. v. Kappos is whether a deficient Office Action that was subsequently vacated by the USPTO nevertheless satisfied the USPTO’s obligation to take action within four months of the applicant’s previous reply.
Tags: Delay, Kappos, Oncolytics, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), PTA Comment
Email	Patent Term Adjustment – Challenging Applicant Delays
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 22 March 2011
Posted in Patent Term Adjustment Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and Morphosys AG are among the latest patent holders to file a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) action against the USPTO. Their complaint is somewhat unique in that it challenges the factual basis for PTA deductions based on “Applicant Delay,” rather than challenging the USPTO’s interpretation of the PTA statute.
Email	Patent Term Adjustment – Is Equitable Tolling Available For Wyeth Problems?
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 07 March 2011
Tags: Equitable Tolling, Merck, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), Schering, Wyeth Comment
Email	An Appealing Patent Term Adjustment Issue
Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 27 September 2010
Posted in Patent Office Practice; Patent Term Adjustment Since the Federal Circuit decision in Wyeth v. Kappos, we have been applying greater scrutiny to the USPTO’s interpretations of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute. While we previously reviewed the USPTO’s calculations to ensure that the USPTO delays and Applicant delays were correctly counted in accordance with the rules, we find ourselves more frequently questioning whether the rules themselves are in accord with the statute. Just like the Federal Circuit determined that the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(2)(A) was inconsistent with the statute, I think that the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) improperly excludes time that has nothing to do with an actual appeal to the Board. Continue reading this entry
Tags: Appeal, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), Wyeth Comment