直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

What Are the Priority Date, Patent Term, and Effective Filing Date of a Patent: The Roles of Specific Reference, Incorporation by Reference, and Claim Support

October 30, 2018

IPWatchdog

By Adriana L. Burgy; Thomas Lee Irving; Stacy D. Lewis*

A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates that for priority claims and patent term, the phrase “specific reference” is key. For example, amongst three related applications, to get the benefit of priority of an earlier U.S. patent application 1, application 3 in a priority claim has to have a “specific reference” to earlier application 1. A mere priority claim in application 3 to application 2, even though application 2 specifically “incorporates by reference” application 1, is not sufficient to allow application 3 to rely on the filing date of application 1. Rather, the priority chain is broken between applications 2 and 1, leaving application 3, at best, with a priority date of application 2 for purposes of patentability.

Furthermore, a recent district court decision highlights that there must be nothing more than a “specific reference” in the later patent application to the earlier patent application to start the patent clock with the date of the earlier patent application. And, whether or not any claim in the later application is entitled to priority in the earlier application for patentability purposes requires “specific reference” to the earlier application. In this article, Finnegan attorneys analyze two recent cases for practical lessons when (1) drafting and prosecuting patent applications and (2) analyzing issued U.S. patents in the context of freedom to operate and/or due diligence.

Click here to read the full article.

*Stacy Lewis is a law clerk at Finnegan.

Tags

patent application, due diligence, freedom-to-operate

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan


Originally printed in 
IPWatchdog on October 30, 2018. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

NAPABA Convention 2026

November 12-14, 2026

Los Angeles

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 10, 2026

San Jose

Charitable

2026 ALYN Hospital Wheels of Love Ride

November 8-12, 2026

Northern District

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP