PFIZER INC. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Even substantive defects in notices such as restriction requirements may not toll the PTA clock

by Steve Driskill | Jan 22, 2016 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure

Even substantive defects in notices such as restriction requirements may not toll the clock for patent term adjustment purposes. Here, for example, no A Delay was found to be due for the time period between an initial and subsequently withdrawn restriction requirement...

MOHSENZADEH v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Patent term extension afforded to a parent application does not extend to any continuing applications

by Steve Driskill | Jun 25, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure

Patent term extension afforded to a parent application does not extend to any continuing applications. Here, for example, two divisional applications were found not to be entitled to the patent term adjustment in the parent application arising from the delay in...

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A supplemental document filed after a reply constitutes an unreasonable delay for PTA adjustment

by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure

Filing a supplemental document after submitting a reply constitutes an unreasonable delay by the applicant for the purposes of PTA adjustment. Here, for example, the filing of a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to an initial restriction requirement was found...

NOVARTIS AG v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Patent term adjustment calculations under request for continued examination practice

by Steve Driskill | Jan 15, 2014 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure

For the purposes of calculating the patent term adjustment under § 154(b), the time between allowance and issuance is not “time consumed by continued examination” and therefore not to be excluded from adjustments given to the patentee under § 154(b)(1)(B)(i)....