February 23, 2018
Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Actelion Pharm, Ltd. v. Matal, No. 17-1238 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s patent term adjustment determination regarding a dispute over when national stage examination commenced.
Typically, national stage examination of U.S. applications claiming priority to international PCT applications “commences” 30 months from the priority date of the international application. This commencement date is then used to calculate patent term adjustment if appropriate. An applicant may “commence” national stage examination at an earlier date, however, by making an “express request” under 35 U.S.C. § 371(f).[1] To facilitate this request, the USPTO offers a form with a checkbox that states: “This is an express request to begin national examination procedures . . . .”
Here, Actelion submitted the form, but it did not check the “express request” checkbox. Instead, it stated on that form that “Applicant earnestly solicits early examination and allowance of these claims.” The USPTO declined to accept Actelion’s statement as an express request to commence national stage examination and calculated patent term adjustment accordingly. Actelion sued the USPTO in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the USPTO, and Actelion appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that, although the USPTO form is optional and there may be other ways to communicate a § 371(f) request, Actelion’s statement was insufficient to make its intentions clear, particularly because it did not reference § 371(f), the PCT, or the national stage.
patent term adjustment, patent term extension, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), 2018 Top Insights
[1] The Federal Circuit noted that “under either pre- or post-TCA law, Actelion was required to comply with the ‘express request’ provision of § 371(f) if it wished to commence the national stage before the expiration date provided in § 371(b).”
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.