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.
Webinar
Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe
November 19, 2026
Webinar
Webinar
2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches
October 14, 2026
Webinar
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
October 7, 2026
Articles
California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions
October 7, 2026
Seminar
October 1, 2026
Washington, DC
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.