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

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Go Ahead and Check It: Failure to Expressly Request Early Commencement of National Stage Examination Causes Headaches

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.

Tags

patent term adjustment, patent term extension, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), 2018 Top Insights

For more information

[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).”

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Sydney R. Kestle
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4241
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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.

Related Insights

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Mere Invalidity of Asserted Claims Does Not Render Patent Infringement Case Exceptional or Warrant Sanctions

June 26, 2026

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