The typical 20 year term of a U.S. patent can be extended via PTA to compensate the applicant for delays caused by the USPTO during examination. On the other hand, delays caused by the applicant can reduce the PTA that would otherwise be granted.
One type of USPTO delay that can trigger a term adjustment is when a patent fails to issue within three years of its filing date (so-called “B delay”). Prior to Novartis, if an applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) during prosecution, the time period for calculating PTA based on B delay ended when the RCE was filed. As a result, no PTA would be awarded for post-allowance delays.
In Novartis, the court held this practice to be flawed, finding that PTA should be granted for post-allowance delays caused by the USPTO even after an RCE is filed. The new rules implement the Novartis decision, providing that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files another RCE after such allowance. The new rules also provide an exception to the PTA reduction rule for the situation where an RCE is filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication.
While patents issued on or after October 7, 2014 should have PTA calculated correctly in accordance with the new rules, applicants should remain vigilant in reviewing the accuracy of PTA determinations. In addition, when filing an RCE to cite references, applicants should consider whether a PTA reduction exception applies and, if so, make the appropriate statement under 37 C.F.R. 1.704(d).
This update was prepared by Ronald E. Cahill and Michael P. Visconti, III, members of the Intellectual Property practice at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP. For more information, please contact Ron, Mike, or your Nutter attorney at 617.439.2000.
This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.
Ronald E. Cahill chairs Nutter’s Intellectual Property Department and the firm’s IP Litigation practice group, and is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property and Litigation Departments. He is also a member of the ...
Michael P. Visconti, III is a partner and the Deputy Chair of Nutter's Intellectual Property Department. He is a member of the Life Sciences and Medical Devices practice group and also serves on the firm’s Hiring Committee.
Maximizing the protection and value of intellectual property assets is often the cornerstone of a business's success and even survival. In this blog, Nutter's Intellectual Property attorneys provide news updates and practical tips in patent portfolio development, IP litigation, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and licensing.