February 18, 2016
Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
CAFC Decision: Pfizer, Inc. v. Lee, No. 2015-1265 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016)
Background: During prosecution of Pfizer’s patent application covering a treatment for cancer, the PTO issued a restriction requirement that omitted certain claims. Pfizer notified the PTO of the omission, and the examiner sent a corrected restriction requirement that restarted the response period.
Issue: Should the 197-day period between the first and second restriction requirements be included in the patent term adjustment (“PTA”) calculation because the delay was caused by the PTO’s failure to provide adequate notice as to its treatment of the omitted claims?
Outcome: The Federal Circuit held that the original restriction requirement satisfied the PTO’s notice requirement because it informed Pfizer of “the broad statutory basis” for the treatment of the omitted claims. The Court noted that because the omitted claims depended from independent claims cited in the original restriction requirement, and because the two restrictions were nearly identical, Pfizer was on notice of the PTO’s treatment of the omitted claims. Thus, the delay associated with sending the corrected restriction requirement had no effect on PTA.
Prosecution Takeaway: Replacement communications from the PTO will not count towards PTA when it is possible to discern the Office’s intent from the original communication.
Copyright © 2016 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.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 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.