October 14, 2019
Authored and Edited by Michael Liu Su; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Iancu, No. 2018-2031 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the USPTO properly concluded that Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is reduced by the period after an interference concludes and the issuance of a notice of allowance, when the interference followed the filing of an Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
PTA can accrue when a patent application is pending for more than three years, but can also be reduced by “any time consumed by continued examination of the application requested by the applicant” and “any time consumed by a proceeding under [interference proceedings].” During prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/421,310, Mayo filed an RCE. After the RCE filing, the examiner declared an interference. After the interference concluded, the examiner issued an office action and subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance. Mayo’s timeline below summarizes the prosecution:
The USPTO deducted period 3 (04/23/14 to 11/03/14) in this chart from the PTA. Mayo disputed this. A district court confirmed the USPTO’s interpretation and Mayo appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision that the period after conclusion of an interference up to a notice of allowance is deducted from PTA when the interference followed an RCE filing. The court rejected Mayo’s argument that an interference is equivalent to a notice of allowance because claims must be “deemed allowable” to enter an interference. The court explained that the “[USPTO] regulations as a whole do not indicate that a declaration of an interference is tantamount to a Notice of Allowance.” The court also reasoned that the filing of an RCE is not limited to issues the applicant would like resolved, but also allows the examiner to issue new rejections before allowance.
The court held that “where an RCE has previously been filed, the time between termination of an interference and the date of mailing of the Notice of Allowance is ‘time consumed by continued examination’” that reduces PTA.
Judge Newman dissented, reasoning that Mayo had not requested further examination after the interference and that the majority’s result is contrary to patent policy.
Copyright © 2019 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
Articles
Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions
March/April 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.