October 20, 2019

October 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Don’t B Late; Federal Circuit Interprets The B Delay Calculation

Mayo Foundation v. Iancu reads more like an arithmetic problem than a Federal Circuit decision. The reason is the case involves the Patent Term Adjustment Act (PTA) (see 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)). PTA determinations require calculating how many days of delay, from the effective filing date to the Notice of Allowance, are attributable to the applicant and how many to the PTO. Under one PTA scenario, the applicant is entitled to an adjusted term, recovering every day the application is pending beyond three years past the effective filing date for the balance of delay attributable to the PTO. This is called a “B Delay” (§154(b)1)(B)). However, the B Delay is subject to several exclusions. The disputed exclusion in Mayo concerned a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of the application, which Mayo filed before the PTO declared an interference. 

The period in dispute is 194 days that lapsed between the interference proceeding terminating and the Notice of Allowance. During that timeframe, the examiner reopened examination and issued an Office Action rejecting the claims. Mayo asserted that the 194 days are attributable to the PTO because Mayo did not request examination after the interference. However, the PTO argued that RCE time was still running and only terminated when the Notice of Allowance was mailed.

The Federal Circuit noted two points in concluding there was no B Delay. First, an Interference and a Notice of Allowance are treated differently for calculating PTA. Although at least one claim must be in condition for allowance before an interference can be declared, additional examination is possible. Second, the examiner reopening examination sua sponte after an interference was RCE time under the PTA. Therefore, applicants should be aware that requesting continued examination for interference purposes might expose them to subsequent examination that can decrease their patent term.

Co-Authored by  Jake Michalakes

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Aaron Morrow ,Associate, patent attorney,Chicago, chemistry, biochemistry, food sciences, nutritional compositions, pharmaceuticals
Associate

Aaron Morrow is a PTO-registered patent attorney with a background in biochemistry and biology and experience in all aspects of patent prosecution. His practice involves a broad range of complex technologies with an emphasis in preparing and prosecuting patent applications related to chemistry, biochemistry, food sciences, nutritional compositions, and pharmaceuticals. He also has experience navigating foreign-derived patent applications to allowance in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

312-781-6043