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

IP Update

USPTO Withdraws Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Terminal Disclaimers

December 3, 2024

By Mary C. Till; Jeffrey M. Jacobstein

Good news for patent applicants—at least for the moment—as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on December 3 that it is withdrawing its proposal to expand the statements required when filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate a double patenting rejection. On May 10, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (89 Fed. Reg. 40439) that would have required patent applicants (or patentees in reexaminations or reissues) to include an additional statement agreeing that a subject patent would only be enforceable if the subject patent or application had never been tied directly or indirectly to another patent by one or more terminal disclaimers in which: (1) any claim had been finally held unpatentable or invalid as anticipated or obvious (under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103) by a Federal court in a civil action or by the USPTO, and all appeal rights have been exhausted; or (2) a statutory disclaimer of a claim was filed after any challenge based on anticipation or obviousness to that claim has been made. 

On December 4, 2024, the Federal Register will publish a notice from the USPTO indicating that the May 10, 2024, notice of proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn. The notice gives the following reasons for the withdrawal:

During the proposed rule’s 60-day comment period, the USPTO received more than 300 comments from a variety of stakeholders, including commenters both supporting and opposing the proposal. . . . 

In light of resource constraints, the USPTO has decided not to move forward with the proposed rule at this time and to withdraw the proposed rule. 

This means that, right now, patentees and applicants can continue to file terminal disclaimers without binding themselves to yet another limitation on enforceability of the subject patent.

Tags

patent application, rule change, federal register, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Mary C. Till
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4125
Email
Jeffrey M. Jacobstein
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1664
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June and July 2026

August 19, 2026

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Squires Issues Precedential Decision Clarifying Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections

August 17, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC Action Permissibly Lodged Prior to the Grant of a European Patent

12 August 2026

Webinar

USPTO Examiner Interview Strategies: Preparing for and Conducting Interviews to Advance Patent Prosecution

August 4, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in May 2026

July 31, 2026

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 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