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

No Patent Term Adjustment for Child Applications Based on Prosecution Delay in Parent Application

June 29, 2015

Authored and Edited by James D. Stein; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, No. 14-1499 (Fed Cir. June 25, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order in favor of the USPTO that patent term adjustment for a divisional patent application is not extended for delays during prosecution of the related parent application.

35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A), which governs patent term adjustments, states that “if the issue of an original patent is delayed . . . the term of the patent shall be extended[.]” According to the Court, this language plainly means that Congress intended delays during prosecution of an application to be restored only to the patent “issuing directly from that application,” not to its later-filed continuing applications. The Court reasoned that if Congress intended for delays to be added to continuing applications, it would have said so expressly. Noting that Congress also passed on an opportunity to amend to statute to include continuing applications, the Court concluded that “Congress did not intend for delays in parent applications to result in patent term adjustments in continuing applications.”

Tags

patent term extension

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 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

Conference

2027 ABA-IPL Section Annual Meeting – IPLSPRING

April 14-15, 2027

Arlington

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Conference

Atlantic Basin Conference on Chemistry 2026

December 6-9, 2026

Rio de Janeiro

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

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

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