Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/130025766/Bayer-Intellectual-Property-et-al-v-Rea
Timestamp: 2017-02-19 19:47:18
Document Index: 241101375

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 701', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 1331', '§ 154', '§ 701', '§ 154', '§ 703', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 1', '§ 154', '§ 5', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', 'Application No. 10', '§371', '§ 371', '§ 132', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 706', 'art0']

Bayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. Rea | Title 35 Of The United States Code
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinFILEDIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2013 MAR 12 P 12 12
and BAYER PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
CA.No. J.1 lVv/^
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office Office of General Counsel
Madison Building East, Room 10B20 600 Dulany Street
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft
(together, "Bayer"), by their attorneys, hereby allege as follows:
U.S.C. §§ 701-706, by the assignee of United States Patent No. 8,273,876 (herein, the '"876 patent," attached hereto as Exhibit A) seeking review of the patent term adjustment granted by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 154(b).
The PTO, acting contrary to its statutoryjurisdiction and authority, arbitrarily and
capriciously granted Bayer a patent term adjustment of only 1481 days, although Bayer is
entitled to a patent term adjustment of 1981 days.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A), Bayer hereby seeks review of and a remedy
for the PTO's failure to award the proper amount of patent term adjustment.
Plaintiff Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, with a place of business at AlfredNobel-Strasse 10,40789 Monheim, Germany. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH is the assignee
of the '876 patent.
Plaintiff Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Germany, and having its principle place of business at Mullerstrasse 178,
13353 Berlin, Germany. Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft is the exclusive licensee of the '876
Defendant Teresa Stanek Rea is the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the PTO, acting in her official capacity. The powers
and duties of the PTO are vested in the Director, who is responsible for providing management supervision for the PTO and for the issuance of patents. The Director is the official responsible
for determining the period of patent term adjustment, see 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(3), and is the
proper defendant in a suit seeking review of such determinations, see id. § 154(b)(4)(A).
JURISDICTION. VENUE. AND TIMING
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a),
and 1361; 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A); and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 703.
This Complaint is timely filed within 180 days after the grant of the '876 patent.
See 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A) (2006 & Supp. V2011).'
The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 amended 35 U.S.C. § 154 to
address concerns that delays by the PTO during prosecution of patent applications could result in a shortening of the effective life of the granted patent to less than seventeen years. The statute
requires the PTO to adjust patent terms to compensate for three categories of processing delay.
These categories are set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 154(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C), and are commonly known as "A delay," "B delay," and "C delay," respectively.
12. Under the "B delay" provision, applicants receive additional patent term "if the
issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the [PTO] to issue a patent within 3
years after the actual filing date" of the application "not including," among other things, "any
time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under
section 132(b)." 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B).
If the issuance of a patent is delayed beyond the 3-year period, the "B delay"
provision requires that "the term of the patent shall be extended 1 day for each day after the end
of that 3-year period until the patent is issued." 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B). A request for
continued examination ("RCE") filed after the 3-year period has no impact on the calculation of
1Although § 154(b)(4)(A) was amended on January 14,2013, see Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 112-274, § 1(h), 126 Stat. 2456,2457 (2013) (to be codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A)); see also id. § l(n), 126 Stat, at 2459 (to be codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. § 5 note), the amended statute does not apply retroactively to the '876 patent. The statute in force when the PTO issued its patent term adjustment calculation for the '876 patent and when the patent issued, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A) (2006 & Supp. V 2011), permits Bayer to file a civil action against the Director in this Court within 180 days after the grant of the patent.
the "B delay" period. While the patent term adjustment granted under the "B delay" provision is subject to certain limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2), none of the limitations identified in § 154(b)(2) reduces or limits the adjustment based on the filing of an RCE. See Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, No. 1:12-cv-0096,2012 WL 5398876, at *7 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6,2012), appeal docketed,
No. 2013-1175 (Fed. Cir. filed Jan. 18,2013).
Relevant Events in the Prosecution of the '876 patent
The following are the relevant dates during the prosecution of the '876 patent
according to the "Patent Term Adjustment" page of the PTO's Patent Application Information
Retrieval ("PAIR") database for the '876 patent, which is attached as Exhibit B:
U.S. Patent Application No. 10/521,534 (the "'534 application") was filed as
PCT/EP03/07093 on July 3, 2003.
On January 18,2005, the '534 application commenced the U.S. National Stage
under 35 U.S.C. §371.
The '534 application received a completion date of August 31,2005 under 35
U.S.C. § 371(c).
On April 2,2009, the PTO mailed a restriction requirement.
On August 6,2009, the PTO mailed a non-final rejection.
On January 6,2010, the applicant filed a response to the non-final rejection.
On May 11,2010, the PTO mailed a final rejection.
On August 11,2010, the applicant filed a request for continued examination under
35 U.S.C. § 132(b).
On October 8,2010, the applicant filed an information disclosure statement.
On September 7,2011, the PTO mailed a non-final rejection.
On December 5,2011, the applicant filed a response to the non-final rejection.
26. final rejection.
On December 16,2011, the applicant filed a supplemental response to the non-
On April 12,2012, the PTO mailed a notice of allowance.
On July 11,2012, the applicant filed an amendment after notice of allowance.
On August 24,2012, the PTO mailed a response to the amendment after notice of
On September 25,2012, the PTO issued the '876 patent.
The Correct Calculation of Patent Term Adjustment for the '876 patent
The PTO admits that the "A delay" calculation for the ' 876 patent is 1166 days.
The PTO caused "B delay" by failing to issue a patent within three years of
January 18,2005, i.e., by January 18,2008. No RCE was filed during that 3-year period. The correct amount of "B delay" for the '876 patent is 1712 days, which is the period of time
between the 3-year anniversary of January 18,2005 (i.e., January 18,2008) and the date the
patent issued (i.e., September 25,2012).
The correct period of "overlap" of the "A delay" and corrected "B delay" periods
is 722 days which is equal to the sum of 440 days (January 18,2008 through April 2,2009), 5 days (May 6,2010 through May 11,2010), 270 days (December 11,2010 through September 7,
2011), and 7 days (April 5,2012 through April 12,2012)). See 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(A); see
also Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364,1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Bayer and the PTO agree that no "C delay" occurred during pendency of the
application that issued as the '876 patent.
The PTO calculated the total applicant delay throughout the entire prosecution of
the '876 patent as 175 days.
Accordingly, the correct total patent term adjustment for the '876 patent is 1981
days, which is equal to the total of 1166 days of "A delay," plus 1712 days of "B delay," minus
722 days of "overlap," minus 175 days of applicant delay.
The PTO's Incorrect Calculation of Patent Term Adjustment for the '876 Patent
The patent term adjustment set forth on the face of the issued '876 patent is 1481
days. The same patent term adjustment is calculated and shown on the PTO's PAIR database for the '876 patent, which is attached as Exhibit B. 38. The PTO's calculation shows an "A delay" of 1166 days (884 days on line 36,
plus 5 days on line 45, plus 270 days on line 66, plus 7 days on line 82), a "B delay" of 935 days (shown as "PTA 36 Months" on line 97.5), an "overlap" of 445 days (440 days from the
beginning ofthe "B delay" period on January 18,2008 through the mailing of the restriction
requirement on April 2,2009, plus 5 days on line 45), and "applicant delay" of 175 days (61
days on line 42, plus 58 days on line 56, plus 11 days on line 69, plus 45 days on line 90).
39. To arrive at its calculation of 935 days of "B delay," the PTO omitted the 777-
day period beginning on August 11,2010 (i.e., the date on which the RCE was filed) and ending
on September 25,2012 (i.e., the date the '876 patent issued). The PTO's exclusion of this 777day period of "B delay" is contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B). To the extent that 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.703(b)(1) would require otherwise, that regulation is contrary to the statute and cannot
support the PTO's patent term adjustment calculation.
The correct period of "B delay" is equal to the full 1712-day period from January
18,2008 through September 25,2012.
Alternative Grounds for PTO Error
Even if the PTO were correct that the "B delay" period excludes "any time
consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section
132(b)" that occurs after the 3-year period, the PTO's calculation is still incorrect.
Time after the Notice ofAllowance
The PTO's "B-delay" calculation improperly left out the 165-day period between the
mailing of the notice of allowance and the issuance of the '876 patent. The PTO improperly assumes that every day after the applicant's filing of an RCE constitutes "time consumed by
continued examination." See 37 C.F.R. § 1.703(b)(1). However, no continued examination
takes place after the PTO mails a notice of allowance, because that time would be consumed
whether or not an RCE had been filed. As PTO itself stated in its notice of allowance on April
12,2012, the application "Has Been Examined" and "Prosecution on the Merits Is Closed."
Exhibit C, at 1. Moreover, the PTO's rules explain that "[pjrosecution in an application is
closed" if "the last Office action is... a notice of allowance." See 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Thus,
between the PTO's mailing of the notice of allowance on April 12,2012, thereby closing
examination of the application, and the issuance of the patent on September 25,2012, an
additional 165 days of "B delay" accrued.
Improper Subtraction of "Applicant Delay "
The PTO also improperly subtracted periods of time as "applicant delay" that did
not occur during any periods of "A," "B," or "C delay." 43. The PTO subtracted as "applicant delay" 58 days resulting from the filing of an
informationdisclosure statement on October 8,2010, and 11 days resulting from the filing of a supplemental response to a non-final rejection on December 16,2011. See Exhibit B (58 days on
line 56,11 days on line 69). That subtraction was improper. Under § 154(b)(2)(C)(i), "ft]he
period ofadjustment ofthe term ofa patentunder paragraph [§ 154(b)](1) shall be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable
efforts to conclude prosecution of the application." 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(C)(i) (emphasis added). If the PTO were correct that there should be no period of"B-delay" adjustment following the filing of an RCE on August 11,2010, then it was improper for the PTO to count 69 days during that period as "applicant delay." There is no period of adjustment to reduce by Bayer's filings. Accordingly, if the PTO's interpretation of what constitutes "B delay" is
maintained, then the PTA should also be increased by 69 days.
If the 165-day period identified above is counted as "B delay," then it was
appropriate for the Office, as it did, to subtract as "applicant delay" the 45-day period resulting
from the filing of an amendment after the notice of allowance on July 11,2012. See Exhibit B
(45 days on line 90). This is because that 45-day period falls within the same period for which
"B delay" is counted. Id. However, if Bayer is incorrect and the 165-day period should not be
counted as "B delay," then the 45-day period resulting from the filing of an amendment after the
notice of allowance also should not be counted as "applicant delay" because it did not occur
during periods of"A," "B," or "C" delay.
As explained above, Bayer contends that the '876 patent is entitled to a PTA of
1981 days. However, if this calculation is rejected, the '876 patent is entitled in the alternative to
a PTAthat includes not only the 1481 days of the PTO's original calculation, but also the 69-day
and 165-day periods identified above for a total of 1715 days (i.e., 1166 days of "A delay," plus 1100days of "B delay," minus 445 days of "overlap," minus 106days of "applicantdelay"). To the extent that Bayer is not entitled to the additional 69-day period, then the additional 165-day
period should still be awarded. To the extent that Bayer is not entitled to the 165-day period
identified above, then the additional 69-day and 45-day periods should be awarded.
(Patent Term Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. § 154)
Bayer incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
The PTO's calculation of the "B delay" adjustment for the '876 patent was based
on a flawed interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).
The PTO's erroneous interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) resulted in an incorrect
calculation of patent term adjustment and deprived Bayer of the correct patent term for the '876
The PTO's patent term adjustment calculation of only 1481 days for the ' 876
patent is contrary to its statutory jurisdiction and authority, and arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
WHEREFORE, Bayer requests the following relief:
A judgment ordering the PTO to correct the patent term adjustment for the
'876 patent to 1981 days thereby correcting the term of the '876 patent, and to issue a certificate of correction reflecting the corrected adjustment;
In the alternative—and only if the Court rejects Bayer's primary
contention that the PTO improperly excluded from its calculation of the length of the "B delay"
adjustment "time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant under section 132(b)"—ajudgment ordering the PTO to correct the patent term
adjustment for the '876 patent to 1715 days (or, as set forth above, to an additional appropriate
period above 1481 days) thereby correcting the term of the '876 patent, and to issue a certificate of correction reflecting the corrected adjustment; and
Such further and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: March 12,2013
Sjajn^y-^-Fisher (BarNo. 68143)
Andrew V. Trask
725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5029
sfisher(a),wc.com
725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5000
iberniker@,wc.com atrask(a),wc.com
Attorneyfor PlaintiffsBayerIntellectual Property GmbH and Bayer PharmaAktiengesellschaft
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. Rea by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00324-GBL-TRJ: Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH et. al. v. Rea. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virgi...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00324-GBL-TRJ: Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH et. al. v. Rea. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Hon. Gerald Bruce Lee presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Nx for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedIncyte v. Reaby PatentBlastMKS Instruments v. Reaby PriorSmartMerck Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. Kapposby PriorSmartFirmenich v. Reaby PriorSmartSanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Reaby PriorSmartSanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Reaby PatentBlastCellerant Therapeutics v. Reaby PriorSmartAbbott Cardiovascular Systems v. Reaby PriorSmartBioGeneriX v. Kapposby PriorSmartBioniche Life Sciences v. Reaby PriorSmart v. Institut De Recherche Pour Le Developpement et. al.by PriorSmartExelixis v. Honorable David J. Kapposby PriorSmartExelixis v. Kapposby PriorSmartALAXALA Networks v. Reaby PriorSmartPresident and Fellows of Harvard College et. al. v. Kappos et. al.by PriorSmartIndex Systems v. Reaby PatentBlastBurris Company v. Aim Sportsby PriorSmartGraco - Petition for IPR D231by slbursteinFirmenich v. Kapposby PriorSmartGraco - Petition for IPR D621by slbursteinVertex Pharmaceuticals v. Reaby PatentBlastNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 46by Justia.comZeidman v. Reaby PriorSmartNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 116by Justia.comSupernus and United vs. U.S. Patent and Trademark Officeby tinareedreporterZeidman v. Patent & Trademark Office Directorby PatentBlastNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 45by Justia.comNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 178by Justia.comSimilar to Bayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. ReaSkip carouselIncyte v. ReaMKS Instruments v. ReaMerck Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. KapposFirmenich v. ReaSanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. ReaSanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. ReaCellerant Therapeutics v. ReaAbbott Cardiovascular Systems v. ReaBioGeneriX v. KapposBioniche Life Sciences v. Rea v. Institut De Recherche Pour Le Developpement et. al.Exelixis v. Honorable David J. KapposExelixis v. KapposALAXALA Networks v. ReaPresident and Fellows of Harvard College et. al. v. Kappos et. al.Index Systems v. ReaBurris Company v. Aim SportsGraco - Petition for IPR D231Firmenich v. KapposGraco - Petition for IPR D621Vertex Pharmaceuticals v. ReaNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 46Zeidman v. ReaNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 116Supernus and United vs. U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeZeidman v. Patent & Trademark Office DirectorNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 45Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 178Publications International, Ltd. et. al. v. Sonix Technology Co. Ltd.Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 179Bayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. Rea