Opinion ID: 2811842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the statute’s plain language

Text: RESOLVES THE DISPUTE The language of the provision of the patent term adjustment statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A), clearly shows that Congress intended delay in the prosecution of an application to be restored to a single patent, the patent issuing directly from that application. In other words, the term of any patent arising from a continuing application is not restored for delay in the prosecution of the parent patent’s application. The statute’s reference to “an original patent” and later to “an application” does not conclusively show that Congress intended the provision to refer to multiple applications merely because it used “an” in the second instance instead of “the.” Had Congress intended for the period of delay during prosecution of a parent application to be restored for all continuing applications deriving from it, it would have done so expressly. We need only look to the previous subsection of the same statute to find an example of express congressional intent to address the relationship between parent applications and continuing applications, 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2). In § 154(a)(2), Congress provided that the term of a patent arising from a non-continuing application should end “20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed.” In that same subsection, Congress specified that for an application that “contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section . . . 121,” i.e., a divisional application, the term ends 20 years “from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.” Id. Congress’ intent that the statute clearly address both parent and continuing applications, where necessary, suggests that Congress did not provide patent term adjustments in continuing applications based on delays in the prosecution of parent applications in § 154(b)(1)(A). See generally Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (noting that Congress acts intentionally where it 10 MOHSENZADEH v. LEE “includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section”); BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994) (same). As the government argues, Congress’ insertion of the provision governing international applications in § 154(b)(1)(A)(ii) when it amended the statute in 2000 also signifies that Congress did not intend for patent term adjustments in continuing applications to be made for delays in parent applications. A previous version of the bill addressed only adjustments to domestic applications, referring to “the application” in § 154(b)(1)(A)(i). H.R. Rep. No. 106-287, at 105 (1999) (Comm. Rep.) (emphasis added). Congress revised the bill so as to address adjustments to patents arising out of both domestic applications, in § 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(I), and international applications, in § 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II). When it did so, it used the indefinite article “an” before the word “application” in both §§ 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(I) and (II). H.R. Rep. No. 106-464, at 48 (1999) (Conf. Rep.). This later version was identical to the final text of § 154(b)(1)(A)(i). The indefinite article, thus, appears not to allow for reference to a different application than the one ripening into “an original patent,” but simply to signify Congress’ adjustment of the statute to account for the fact that a patent may arise either from a domestic application or an international application. Because we hold that the plain language of § 154(b)(1)(A) shows that Congress did not intend to provide patent term adjustments in continuing applications based on delays in the prosecution of parent applications, it is not necessary to reach whether 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(c)(14) is a proper exercise of the PTO’s delegated rule making authority under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(C)(iii).